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

181–190 of 192 posts

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

#181

Post by majewsky »

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?

> You can pretty much make this argument for everything - Ferraris should be plastered by LCDs with ads then.

Not a Ferrari, but my mother got a discount on her Toyota Yaris by letting the car dealer put a decal ad on it for 1 or 2 years. (Back in 2002 or so.)

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

#182

Post by sixdimensional »

expertentipp wrote: post #179
sixdimensional wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, they'll be monitoring your sentiment during boarding and passengers that appear agitated will be calmly denied access to board. And you'll be monitored in your seat as well during the flight. It's not Orwell's imagination anymore, it's reality. Only privacy law can stop it, maybe.

> they'll be monitoring your sentiment during boarding and passengers that appear agitated will be calmly denied access to board. And you'll be monitored in your seat as well during the flight. Disappointing is that this is the more likely outcome, rather than easing the sensory overload, stress, and discomfort.

To be fair, there are attempts at this being made too. But they come in a weird fashion, for example - seats get smaller but are higher quality. Air quality on airplanes and lighting has generally improved but flights are getting longer.

It’s an interesting balance but it always reminds me that flying through the sky in a tin can is not entirely natural.

Of course, some of the security measures are for your comfort and safety as well. It’s just where the line is between for your good and for theirs that is tough to identify.

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

#183

Post by sizzle »

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.

I'll stick with my ad blocker if that's their logic.

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

#184

Post by softawre »

idonotknowwhy wrote: post #141
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.

Hulu did the same, for a while..

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

#185

Post by jstarfish »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #73
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.

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.

People generally let the dealer sock them with an additional $500 to cover car registration for them (so they don't have to go to the DMV themselves). When this happens, the dealer gets to install the plate for the customer, and they'll throw on the dealer frame at the same time.

After this point, customers don't have much reason to remove the plate or frame unless they really hate the ad, happen to be self-installing a rearview camera or are selling the car.

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

#186

Post by chimprich »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #57
chrisseaton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Guardian does not serve ads to subscribers. I'm sure there are other examples.

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

#188

Post by gjs278 »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #89
gjs278 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

basically nothing. if you never click the ad you are making them a fraction of a cent each view. I doubt one person would even make the site a dollar after a lifetime of reading.

Surely you realize this is incorrect, considering that the Times makes on the order of $200 million/year in online ad revenue.

if you don't click the ads, they barely make anything
Post reply on HN