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

I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

kirkville.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 192 posts

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#22

Post by RealityVoid »

justinph wrote: post #8

If you're a subscriber, you're the most valuable advertising target. You've shown a willingness to pay for stuff on the internet. Furthermore, advertisers are targeting people who read those publications regularly. Subscribers are those people. If you wanted an ad-free subscription, it would cost substantially more than you currently pay to made up for the lost advertising revenue.

Even if, let's say, you WERE to pay substantially more than what you currently pay, the vendor might see fit to extract the maximum amount of value from you, so serve you adds they will. The only way I think they would not serve you adds is if they would lose more money (customers) if they were to serve adds.

But people have proven they are mostly OK with ads, they don't mind them (since so many services online are fueled by them and people use them).

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#25

Post by twblalock »

The restriction on the number of articles is how the news publishers incentivize subscriptions -- subscribing unlocks more articles per week/month/whatever. They are going to advertise either way.

Paper newspapers always had ads too. Subscribers didn't get a different version of the paper without the ads. Ads have been a deeply ingrained part of the news business for over 100 years and they aren't going to stop now.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#27

Post by pixelmonkey »

izacus wrote: post #16
pixelmonkey wrote: post #4

The answer may not be pleasing, but it's true: because "paid subscribers" represent a valuable advertising demographic/segment. They are nearly certain you are human traffic, and you have enough disposable income that you pay for news.

You can pretty much make this argument for everything - Ferraris should be plastered by LCDs with ads then. Business class airplanes filled with blinking video ads. Entrances to highend butiques crowded with people pushing ad leaflets into rich peoples hands.... Why is it acceptable on the web?

This does happen in other places. Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? You've already paid for the flight. Your in-theater movie kicks off with trailers and previews -- you have already paid for the movie ticket. And so on.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#28

Post by twblalock »

pixelmonkey wrote: post #27
izacus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pretty much make this argument for everything - Ferraris should be plastered by LCDs with ads then. Business class airplanes filled with blinking video ads. Entrances to highend butiques crowded with people pushing ad leaflets into rich peoples hands.... Why is it acceptable on the web?

This does happen in other places. Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? You've already paid for the flight. Your in-theater movie kicks off with trailers and previews -- you have already paid for the movie ticket. And so on.

And if you subscribe to a paper newspaper or magazine, that has ads too.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#29

Post by clubm8 »

This seems to be a re-occuring pattern: have ads on a free/cheap service, introduce a paid service, place ads on the paid service, then hope if you hold out long enough people will forget there was a time when your paid service was ad free.

Prime example: Cable tv

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...

Post reply on HN