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

51–60 of 192 posts

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

#51

Post by sz4kerto »

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.

That's common on European low-cost airlines.

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

#53

Post by rhn_mk1 »

rgovostes wrote: post #43
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Of course, but it gives a first order estimate.

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

csydas wrote: post #39
izacus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you deliberately misunderstand my point just to nitpick something fully unrelated to discussion? :/

Because your point is pretty shallow, to be honest. The simple fact is that such tactics do happen in virtually every situation you described. Ad-metrics are super important to virtually every industry now; it may not be the backbone of these industries, but no one scoffs at the paycheck once it's said and done. Your point really doesn't add much to a conversation, since its premise is faulty. We accept such advertis…

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by chrisseaton »

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?

> Why is it acceptable on the web?

It's acceptable because it's the only thing they offer.

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

#56

Post by expertentipp »

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.

Ads on the back of he seat in an airplane are very common in European airlines. One of the most obnoxious, intrusive, literally in-your-face ads as it’s 40cm from one’s face with no real option to get away from it.

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

#57

Post by TeMPOraL »

chrisseaton wrote: post #55
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?

> Why is it acceptable on the web? It's acceptable because it's the only thing they offer.

Like everyone else. Consumers don't really have a choice.

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

#59

Post by perl4ever »

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.

It seems unlikely that the foregone revenue would be more than about 10% of the regular subscription price.

This is based on other posts in this thread that talk about a $84/year subscription and $4-$15/year ad revenue. Since that was a reference to Facebook revenue, I imagine it would be a decent upper bound.

It reminds me of how people say that it's impossible to provide fresh produce without paying people below minimum wage. In lieu of common sense, it depends on numbers, which don't need to be precise, but you can't just handwave.

I'm inclined to believe the true story is simply, as others state, that no matter what the ad revenue is, it's X% more and nobody wants to give it up if they don't have to.

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

#60

Post by TeMPOraL »

RealityVoid wrote: post #22
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 f…

> 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).

Let's remember that people generally have zero choice in the matter.

Post reply on HN