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

Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

elezea.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#91

Post by carrotsalad »

icebraining wrote: post #19
EwanToo wrote: post #4

The future of reading on the web is easy to change, all we need to do is pay some money for each article we want to read without adverts... Unfortunately, the primary impact of putting up a paywall for premium content seems to be to raise huge arguments about why "information wants to be free", not the reality of what happens without one.

I don't know about most people, but I don't read many articles from the same source: I read a few from some online newspaper, then some from another, then a blog post, etc. Now take NYT.com: the minimum subscription is $15/month - it's absurdly expensive for the three or four articles I might read there. You need to solve micropayments to make paywalls work.

That's part of what we're trying to do with http://TipTheWeb.org/ , letting people support the content they like with voluntary micro-donations.

For instance, I've already tipped the original article 20¢ :-) (see my Tip stream at http://tiptheweb.org/tipstream/patg6vy3pyb62/ )

If publishers can get direct financial support from their audience, they wouldn't need to overdo things with ads, and they'd focus more on providing the best possible experience for that audience. Better for everyone.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#92

Post by InfinityX0 »

This:

"The question for reddit isn't whether or not people enjoy it and want to spend time on it, but whether or not the owners can make money selling those people's attention. The traffic to reddit - while admirably large - is relatively unattractive to most advertisers.

"Reach" (impressions/eyeballs) are only important insofar as you're talking to someone who might buy what you're selling (see "relevancy"). The sub-reddit system could theoretically segment the audience in interesting ways, but other than r/gaming, there aren't many natural industry fits amongst popular sub-reddits.

Anecdotally, the audience would also seem to be advertisement-averse. An advertiser should be willing to pay network prices for the audience (i.e. pennies CPM), which makes it a nice living for a small group of folks living off their passion, but pretty useless to a Condé Nast trying to run a media empire.

I think the business model in a reddit-like site could be selling curated content in other media, e.g. a meme-series of coffee table books. Think Harry Potter, not Oprah. If you're in the content game, your business's value is in having the attention of a group of people. Your first attempt to monetize that asset needn't be to sell your audience's attention to someone else, in this case undermining your ability to keep their attention. Instead, you should focus on bringing things your audience wants - and would pay for - to them. Sometimes that means you need to make the things they want to buy instead of shilling them for someone else, because no one sells what your people want.

Condé Nast isn't built to do this."

Via - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2966628

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#93

Post by TeMPOraL »

murki wrote: post #86
TeMPOraL wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the new YouTube ads that play before video are unexpected. And, for me, quite often a back button. After 6 seconds of watching the ad I usually don't care about the video anymore :/ (call it short attention span).

You can skip them after 5 seconds.

Some of them. Others you can't, and you have to wait full 30 seconds. Given that what I want to see is usually 3-5 minute long video, it's pretty significant (10-30%) time.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#94

Post by TeMPOraL »

tbourdon wrote: post #85
jerf wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am hopeful that as the providers become more directly connected to the consumers and it becomes increasingly feasible to deal with them directly, instead of at an arms length in aggregate as was the only option up until now, that we can cut out what is ultimately functioning as a middleman in the relationship, the advertiser. You know how the internet feels about middlemen than aren't adding much value. Even if I j…

This has been my dream for years. Netflix is satisfying part of my content needs with its streaming option. I can only hope that more company's will follow suite. What I'd really like to see is a "real" news website that supplies non-biased news written by real investigative journalists with no advertisements. I'd pay handsomely for that.

> What I'd really like to see is a "real" news website that supplies non-biased news written by real investigative journalists with no advertisements. I'd pay handsomely for that.

+1, I'd definitely pay for that. Right now I don't trust news media by definition, and I believe only what I get from articles featured on HN - because I can be sure that when I click on "comments", I'll find it thoroughly analyzed and debunked by people who actually know and care about what they read.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#96

Post by TeMPOraL »

brigade wrote: post #14
tallanvor wrote: post #12

Well, which would we prefer? Seeing the ads, or having to pay for access to each site? Personally, as annoying as ads are, I still prefer them being there to the content not being available at all.

The issue is not the existence of advertising. The issue is (primarily for me) the new wave of popup ads that don't let you view the content until you find the 30x30 pixel close area. And secondly the sites where ads have become more important than content (reflected in the design.) And thirdly the dozen social media buttons on every single page. Non-horrid advertising should be possible for any respectable website.…

> And thirdly the dozen social media buttons on every single page.

You mean the "Like" / "+1" / "Tweet" buttons under articles? What's wrong with these?

I personally want them to be on websites and I actively seek them after reading an article, because clicking on two or three buttons is so much easier and less distracting than having to copy the URL and paste it into every social website I use.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#97

Post by gergles »

superuser2 wrote: post #88
gergles wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Solving this" implies that there are users who like, value, and want advertising. I don't feel that there are that many people who do. The better thing to solve is "how can websites make money without ads"? How did TV networks stay on the air before commercial breaks? Maybe a similar model can be applied.

Big government, taxes, licenses required to own televisions. As unpopular as advertising is, that's even less likely to fly.

Well, we still have 2/3 of those things in the US and 3/3 in many European countries.

I was more alluding to the idea of "this website sponsored by ___" being inserted into the content in a tasteful, subdued way - kind of like how "Beat the Clock" was actually "Calgon's Beat the Clock".

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#98

Post by brigade »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #44
brigade wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not the existence of advertising. The issue is (primarily for me) the new wave of popup ads that don't let you view the content until you find the 30x30 pixel close area. And secondly the sites where ads have become more important than content (reflected in the design.) And thirdly the dozen social media buttons on every single page. Non-horrid advertising should be possible for any respectable website.…

I think your underestimating the effectiveness of evasive advertising.

Probably. At the very least, I think that if you have user-hostile advertising you instantly lose any right you had to complain about adblock.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#99

Post by TheFuture »

EwanToo wrote: post #4

The future of reading on the web is easy to change, all we need to do is pay some money for each article we want to read without adverts... Unfortunately, the primary impact of putting up a paywall for premium content seems to be to raise huge arguments about why "information wants to be free", not the reality of what happens without one.

Why? Most popular consumer magazines don't even cover the cost of printing and postage with their subscription fee.

If Time magazine no longer needs to print and mail their product, should't they be making MORE money?

One of the fundamental problems that no one mentions is that advertisers have been grossly overpaying for print ads for decades. They had no measure of the effectiveness or reach of their ads except "X magazine has Y subscribers".

With digital targeted advertising, we know exactly how many views, clicks, length of view, not to mention tons of demographic data on the reader. That's worth something. It's worth a lot more than an untargeted ad on a page in a magazine that might go straight from the mailbox into the garbage.

I'm not claiming to know what will happen in digital advertising, but I really don't think paywalls or micropayments are the future. My guess is something like major media companies will get rid of their entire ad sales staff, outsource advertising to Facebook/Google, and deliver their content through multiple channels/feeds/API which can been interpreted by various apps or devices to be viewed in the way the consumer likes.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#100

Post by TheFuture »

tallanvor wrote: post #12

Well, which would we prefer? Seeing the ads, or having to pay for access to each site? Personally, as annoying as ads are, I still prefer them being there to the content not being available at all.

Ask a subscriber to Vogue magazine if they'd prefer a copy with or without ads, both the same price.

9 out of 10 will take the ads, because the ads are beautiful and part of the content, but they are still ads.

That aspect of print advertising has not yet made the transition to digital. People love ads for stuff they like, are interesting, or/and funny.

The solution will not be to remove ads, it will be to improve ads.

Post reply on HN