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

141–150 of 192 posts

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

#141

Post by idonotknowwhy »

gmjoe wrote: post #135

Some numbers for perspective [1]: Digital-only subscription revenue in 2017: $340 million Digital advertising revenue in 2017: $238 million Obviously some digital advertising is shown to print subscribers logging in too... but if we ignore that for simplicity, without ads your NYT digital subscription would be 70% more expensive. At $195/yr. for digital-only, it's already my most expensive subscription by a significa…

So maybe they should offer a premium subscription, 70% more expensive, with absolutely no ads. Sort of like how Tidal Music have $10 / month compressed music, $20 / month uncompressed.

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

#142

Post by bootlooped »

gmjoe wrote: post #135

Some numbers for perspective [1]: Digital-only subscription revenue in 2017: $340 million Digital advertising revenue in 2017: $238 million Obviously some digital advertising is shown to print subscribers logging in too... but if we ignore that for simplicity, without ads your NYT digital subscription would be 70% more expensive. At $195/yr. for digital-only, it's already my most expensive subscription by a significa…

Here are some more recent numbers [1]:

Quarter 1 2018:

$414m total revenue

$260m subscription revenue (62% of total)

$154m non-subscription revenue (38% of total)

$46.7m digital advertising revenue (37% of total advertising revenue)

$126.2m total advertising revenue

If you cut digital advertising completely, not just for subscribers, you could make it up by increasing subscription price by around 10%, assuming 100% of subscribers would bear the new price.

The interesting statistic that we don't have is how much digital advertising revenue comes from paid vs unpaid readers.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-t...

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

#143

Post by jackvalentine »

mianos wrote: post #93
radoslawc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Funny thing is I removed mine when I got my new car home. When I took my car in for a service it came back with new plate surround.

My car was from a dealer that went bust "Ward Subaru", after a service at a non-dealer service centre it came back with "Doncaster Subaru" frames on it!

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

#144

Post by bootlooped »

JasonFruit wrote: post #137
Godel_unicode wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think news consumers are different than YouTube consumers?

Because there's a difference between reading professionally produced news and watching contributed videos? Is there a reason you think they are the same?

I think once it's shown that people are generally willing to pay for the services they use to be ad-free the onus goes back to you to prove why news is a special case to which that trend does not apply. Otherwise we get into an argument black hole where you could infinitely claim the things in question were different than the counter-examples given.

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

#145

Post by sixdimensional »

xg15 wrote: post #123
sixdimensional wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this actually a market inefficiency? Maybe this is an opportunity to discover how humanity can still make information known about products and services without having to make our entire cultures about consumption. I mean, advertising is about information sharing in a way. Can it be more efficient without clobbering art and media?

Ads are less about "information sharing" and more about manipulation though. If I think about "information sharing", I'd imagine that the information is the thing of value to be shared and the goal is to enable the recipient to perform their own decisions with and increased base of background information. However, ads work the other way around: You start with certainly outcomes that you would potential customers arri…

Good points. So what does an ad that doesn't have a behavioral component look like, and can they be presented in a different way? And could we still make that effective? Or is it a class of ad that is ethical vs not?

I know I'm way off in the weeds here, just brainstorming.

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

#146

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #103
angott wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Air Canada IFE pro tip: You can skip the ads. Just scrub ahead.

If there IFE system is like all the others that I've experienced so far, you'll lose more time trying to find the start of the movie than you'd lose by letting the ads run :(

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

#147

Post by emmanuel_1234 »

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?

Airline blasts you with ads for expensive watches, hotels and perfume on the in-flight entertainment, be you in Economy or First class.

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

#149

Post by smnrchrds »

gmjoe wrote: post #135

Some numbers for perspective [1]: Digital-only subscription revenue in 2017: $340 million Digital advertising revenue in 2017: $238 million Obviously some digital advertising is shown to print subscribers logging in too... but if we ignore that for simplicity, without ads your NYT digital subscription would be 70% more expensive. At $195/yr. for digital-only, it's already my most expensive subscription by a significa…

> Digital advertising revenue in 2017: $238 million

Is this from advertising to paid subscribers only, or to paid and free both? If it is the latter, your math may be off by orders of magnitude.

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

#150

Post by Pulcinella »

i88y6 wrote: post #125
Pulcinella wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't buy that car. It's not a Ferrari product.

You actually can buy Ferrari F1 cars https://races.ferrari.com/en/corse-clienti/f1-clienti/

Also I think Enzo Ferrari would argue that the F1 cars and team are the real Ferrari porduct. The road cars are just ads and merchandise for the race team. =P

Post reply on HN