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

61–70 of 192 posts

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

#61

Post by angott »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #44
justboxing wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This already happens on Air Canada (although at least the ads are not personalized). Before each movie or show you play on your IFE screen in economy class, they make you watch two 30 seconds ads. I was very annoyed, especially since AC tickets are already overpriced (little/no competition on domestic flights in Canada).

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

#62

Post by antidesitter »

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…

> Because your point is pretty shallow, to be honest. The simple fact is that such tactics do happen in virtually every situation you described.

Not to the same extent. That’s the point, and it’s an interesting question why this happens. What economic factors account for the differences in advertising between these two markets? It’s not “shallow” as your own shallow dismissal alleges.

> Your point really doesn't add much to a conversation, since its premise is faulty.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

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

#65

Post by Nasrudith »

This type of thing is the thumbprint of management by sociopathy. "Why does nobody subscribe to us and leave us so ad dependent!" They cry. Just like complaints about lack of employee loyalty after they do stuff like layoffs to inflate quarterly earnings and look at pension funds as piggy banks and refuse to give raises. Then complain about people leaving for career advancement when they won't even give Cost of Living raises. The same pattern regardless - do something for short term gain that creates a long term problem and try to pass the buck. And it wasn't their fault because they were entitled to the short term gains. They are incapable of understanding why trying to get paid twice for the same thing is a bad thing or why you should never trust anyone who attempts that. To them trust is something they are entitled by position to regardless of how they mistreat people.

In my opinion the best thing to do with them in response is banish them. Don't invest in them or patronize them as much as possible as they are clearly out to screw you over. If you are in management of a position to do so oust them as soon as possible. Sadly they are a goddamn plague and hard to oust.

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

#66

Post by TeMPOraL »

PaulWaldman wrote: post #63

What if your paid subscription is only covering a portion of the service and the full price is subsidized by the ads?

It's still sad that those companies can't offer the most basic, ethical option - providing value in exchange for money. No, the choice is only between getting crap shoved at you for free, and getting the same amount of crap for money.

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

#67

Post by RealityVoid »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #60
RealityVoid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They would have the exact same choices with a paid provider as they do with the fee ones. Put up with it or leave.

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

#69

Post by radoslawc »

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?

I don't know if Ferraris sold here have this, but many cars sold in Poland have licence plate frame with dealer's name and contact even though you have no agreement with them to advertise their company when you're buying new car. For some (Mitsubishi iirc) they put some kind of semi translucent sticker on your trunk with dealer's name about 2 x 3 inches.

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

#70

Post by TeMPOraL »

RealityVoid wrote: post #67
TeMPOraL wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They would have the exact same choices with a paid provider as they do with the fee ones. Put up with it or leave.

There's no choice wrt. ads because everyone is doing them. It's rare to find an ethical business to patronize.
Post reply on HN