Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 323 posts

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#61

Post by kaybe »

bluGill wrote: post #46
OJFord wrote: post #27

Surely any user that's going to bail because of advertising is already blocking the ads anyway?

I don't object to advertising - it is how free news sights should pay for themselves. I understand and accept the deal. However this is a two way deal, they give me "free" content in exchange for me seeing the ads. If the ads are too intrusive they have violated their end of the contract and I leave.

I actually don't really block ads, I block tracking and by-default scripting (I whitelist pages), plus enforced https. That gets rid of almost all of the ads. If they can't give me ads without these things, their problem.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#62

Post by HenryBemis »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #55
luxuryballs wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m about to release a fun little ambient physics based puzzle game on iOS and have been debating this. To me ads are a stain on what I consider my art. But at the same time I want to monetize and wonder if people will skip over a $1.99 download. What do you think? Ads with the option to unlock? Seems gross though... maybe free with paid version that includes level editor or additional level packs?

Maybe release a couple of levels for free and if they like it they can buy the full game?

I have made an app for iOS, and it is about helping children between on the ages 4-8 read. It took me 1 second to decide "free with ads" vs "0.99". It costs 0.99, and I don't regret the 'small' sales. I prefer that people's children are not tracked by advertisers, facebook (that bloody ping on 31.13.x.x) and other trackers.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#63

Post by kornish »

hammock wrote: post #51
gwern wrote: post #7

More detailed discussion of the 4 other datapoints: https://www.gwern.net/Ads#replication (I added McCoy et al 2007 just last night, so now it's 5 total: me, Pandora, Mozilla, LinkedIn, and McCoy et al 2007.)

Are we controlling for SEO effect? Having ads on your site probably nerfs your Google ranking a bit.

Wouldn't the incentives go the other way? I'd imagine Google wants people to get to sites that serve ads from Google so they can collect fees.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#64

Post by kaybe »

dbcurtis wrote: post #37
ergothus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have troubles with the concept of a "non-intrusive" ad - If you don't notice it to any degree, it's not doing its job, and if you DO notice it to any degree, it's intrusive and disruptive (to a matching degree) I think you mean "Nobody cares ENOUGH" rather than "Nobody cares", and that's a big distinction.

You may have a point. Maybe we need to draw a distinction between "non-intrusive" and "non-distracting". Ads should not move, period. No animated gif's, no video. And for $DIETY's sake, no audio. NONE. No audio. EVER. Slicing up the reading in the middle. Covering with spashes, etc. I just close the tab. But a non-distracting static ad? It is easy to ignore if I don't care, but if, in fact, it is something I care abo…

Some ads are intrusive in the way that they highjack my thought processes. I'm reading about hard-drives, I don't want to think about science fiction right now, and vice versa. So unobtrusive also means matching the content in spirit. (I might be fine with related tech, for example.)

At that point there shouldn't even be any point in user preference tracking any more. I even click these ads on occasion if they seem trustworthy (another important point - there is still too many 'You won a car!'/'Lose weight with one simple trick!'/'Doctors hate him!' kind of ads).

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#65

Post by shittyadmin »

luxuryballs wrote: post #48
eridius wrote: post #44

If a game doesn't offer any way to pay to remove ads, it's an instant uninstall for me. If a game does offer it, but doesn't let me play for long enough to decide whether I like the game before it starts serving up unskippable ads, I uninstall it. Most games simply don't give enough time to decide if you even like it before they start throwing ads at you. That seems like a terrible policy in general, regardless of wh…

I’m about to release a fun little ambient physics based puzzle game on iOS and have been debating this. To me ads are a stain on what I consider my art. But at the same time I want to monetize and wonder if people will skip over a $1.99 download. What do you think? Ads with the option to unlock? Seems gross though... maybe free with paid version that includes level editor or additional level packs?

I think the classic "shareware demo" model is a good one, have some free stuff to introduce the user and make sure they like the game, then give them a wall and tell them to pay if they want more. It's fair to them and fair to you. It doesn't violate their privacy, it makes sure your customers actually want to be your customers (reducing chargebacks because the game has an issue for someone) and you get paid without polluting your art.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#67

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

luxuryballs wrote: post #48
eridius wrote: post #44

If a game doesn't offer any way to pay to remove ads, it's an instant uninstall for me. If a game does offer it, but doesn't let me play for long enough to decide whether I like the game before it starts serving up unskippable ads, I uninstall it. Most games simply don't give enough time to decide if you even like it before they start throwing ads at you. That seems like a terrible policy in general, regardless of wh…

I’m about to release a fun little ambient physics based puzzle game on iOS and have been debating this. To me ads are a stain on what I consider my art. But at the same time I want to monetize and wonder if people will skip over a $1.99 download. What do you think? Ads with the option to unlock? Seems gross though... maybe free with paid version that includes level editor or additional level packs?

IIRC the stats from the last time I published a mobile game, iPhone users were significantly more likely to actually pay for things so it's probably ok to just charge money. Personally, I did ads with paid feature unlock and ad removal because I was publishing on Android.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#68

Post by gwern »

ambicapter wrote: post #58
simongr3dal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also lines up pretty well with the fact that a lot of early stage SV-style startups don't monetize before they have a lot of users. You don't want to lose 10% in the early stages of exponential growth. 10% less users later on would not be a big deal however.

I'd assume that the 10% later on is a relatively larger dollar amount in revenue, no?

But you're not sacrificing growth then. When you sacrifice growth for revenue up front, you're sacrificing not just 1 user but that user and all subsequent users they would've brought in via downstream/compounding effects plus the associated economies of scale (which may well be the only thing that will make you eventually profitable, ads or no ads).

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#69

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

HenryBemis wrote: post #60
umvi wrote: post #32

I believe it. There are a lot of games that I downloaded from the app store and really liked initially. However, I noticed a pattern. At first, ads seemed to be optional (i.e double your gems by watching an ad!) However, after about 10 minutes of playing, I'd see an ad. No big deal. But then it got more and more aggressive. Pretty soon there was an ad after every single level, (plus the bonus ad if you want to double…

This is not ethical.. but here is a work-around. On Android devices, install the (free-and no ads) 'NoRoot Firewall'. Then it takes some minutes to get used to it, but you ONLY 'Allow' connections that the game needs to operate (e.g. everything that goes to port 443 is an indicator, or everything to/from Akamai, AWS, Azure, Cloudfront), and 'Block' everything that goes to port 80 (which usually is AdJust, doubleclick…

Wouldn't it be simpler, more ethical, and send a stronger message to simply not play the game?

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#70

Post by radium3d »

I believe it. I've stopped playing games with ads altogether. I'd rather pay $40-60 for a game that keeps me in the story. I don't have time for ads. Apparently 90% of users do though, so they'll continue to fill up the "top games" lists and make it impossible for us to find good ad-free games in the app stores. Even worse now that google removed the "contains ads" tag from the play store top game lists. sigh
Post reply on HN