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

71–80 of 192 posts

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

#71

Post by andy_ppp »

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 happens in the back of cabs in a lot of places I seem to remember and it’s incredibly difficult to switch off... we essentially are heading for some super weird dystopian sci-fi film right now. It’s terrifying.

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

#72

Post by loceng »

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.

We have to decide as a society to not support platforms or organizations who attempt to extract all possible value. This of course creates opportunity for competition, however with perhaps more difficulty once an incumbent has reached large economies of scale and has strong network effects.

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

#73

Post by TeMPOraL »

radoslawc wrote: post #69
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?

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.

I never understood those. Why almost everyone has an ad on their license plate frames?

One explanation I heard is that companies give them for free, so most people are happy to take them and don't bother with removing the ad.

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

#74

Post by sorokod »

Because not showing you ads would be "leaving money on the table" and that just won't do.

If not showing ads wasn't part of the deal, ads will be shown. If not harvesting your personal data wasn't part of the deal, personal data will be harvested.

That you paid money is irrelevant.

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

#75

Post by pleasecalllater »

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?

In the Ferrari case, you just got one huge expensive advertisement of the company. Just because you are not famous. If you'd be famous, then the Ferrari would pay you for wearing their logo. If you are not, you have to pay them lots of money for the same.

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

#77

Post by TeMPOraL »

Nasrudith wrote: post #65

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 Livin…

We have a systemic problem though. This kind of sociopathy is pretty much legitimized, and being specialized in it is treated as respectable occupation.

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

#78

Post by sixdimensional »

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.

Cable television being another completely obvious one, you literally pay to be advertised to, and for the ability to fast forward through ads.

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

#80

Post by Godel_unicode »

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.

That's absolutely not true. You could just not use the service. I think what you mean is that you have no way to get the service without the ads, so you're willing to put up with the ads to get the service. Which is the whole point.
Post reply on HN