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

41–50 of 192 posts

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

#41

Post by briandear »

Pulcinella wrote: post #33
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?

Ferraris are plastered with ads https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_SF71H#/media/File%3A...

Those are race team sponsorships. People pay the owner of the car to put those ads on the car. That’s the exact opposite of the point under discussion: the owner is getting revenue by choosing to put ads on the car, that is much different than Ferrari putting ads on a car you buy in order to make more money for Ferrari. Those sponsor ads make money for the owner of the car/team.

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

#42

Post by JasonFruit »

bootlooped wrote: post #31
JasonFruit wrote: post #2

There are ads in the paper newspaper I subscribe to as well. Real reporting and quality writing don't come cheaply, and that hasn't changed just because the delivery method did. Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.

"Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies." There are a lot of counter examples to this. Hulu, Spotify, Ars Technica, YouTube Premium, etc... People are willing and able to pay for ad-free content.

(Few of these are news sources worthy of note.)

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

#43

Post by rgovostes »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #14
gunnihinn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a ballpark estimate for what a no-ad online subscription would cost if we assume the parent is true?

> The cost of a regular LWN.net subscription is $7.00/month, with options for those wanting to pay a little more or less. https://lwn.net/subscribe/

That’s nowhere near the scope of the New York Times.

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

#44

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

justboxing wrote: post #34
pixelmonkey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? Yes. And on a recent trip to India, it got even worse. SpiceJet (domestic airlines) has ads on the back of the headrest of EVERY SEAT. Physical paper printed Ads! So you are staring at it for the entirety of your trip. I kid you not.

Wait until screens get cheap enough... you'll have 4k ads rolling on each screen that are tailored from your name in your ticket.

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

#45

Post by dazc »

JasonFruit wrote: post #2

There are ads in the paper newspaper I subscribe to as well. Real reporting and quality writing don't come cheaply, and that hasn't changed just because the delivery method did. Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.

'Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.'

The author thought he was doing exactly this and, consequently, will cease to be a paying subscriber for much longer.

The ads and difficulty in unsubscribing are the reasons why these organisations will never achieve a critical mass of paid subscriptions.

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

#46

Post by pixelmonkey »

izacus wrote: post #37
pixelmonkey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what does that mean? That we need to be shoved ads in our faces at every step of our life even if we pay for products? Just because someone wants to make even more money? What's your takeaway here?

I don't have a "takeaway", but the Bezos quote, "Your margin is my opportunity," comes to mind. We live in capitalism, and in this system, "good user experience" only matters insofar as it is profitable for whoever is providing that user experience. If ads for subscribers are so annoying that people stop subscribing, then companies might stop advertising to them. But if they are not annoying enough to affect those numbers, then it isn't that surprising that they try to earn more revenue from their attention. One other way to look at this: perhaps by advertising to subscribers, these publishers can afford to offer a lower subscription cost to their customers. Let's also remember that most publishing companies don't have massive digital revenue scale or growth, compared especially to the big tech companies. And let's also remember that big tech companies like Amazon and Google monetize customers "on the side" six ways from Sunday.

I guess what you are responding to with outrage, I am responding to with a shrug.

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

#49

Post by tdhoot »

justboxing wrote: post #34
pixelmonkey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? Yes. And on a recent trip to India, it got even worse. SpiceJet (domestic airlines) has ads on the back of the headrest of EVERY SEAT. Physical paper printed Ads! So you are staring at it for the entirety of your trip. I kid you not.

This is common worldwide, I think. Ryanair in Europe and Spirit in the US come to mind.

Spirit actually sells ads on everything it seems, even on the exterior of the plane: https://skift.com/2014/03/11/spirit-airlines-brings-advertis...

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

#50

Post by samstave »

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?

>Ferraris should be plastered by LCDs with ads

TBF, the Ferrari IS the ad - for Ferrari and whatever aggregate-lifestyle-image you are promoting.

"Hey everyone, look at how I have succeeded to the point where I can drive car [X]"

Not that there is anything wrong with that, though.

For example - I like to wear the same hiker-couture gear everyday to feel comfortable, functional and good about myself appearance. I am an advertisement for my thinking and decision making capability.

Post reply on HN