I was hoping this would be about society at large.
It's ridiculous the amount of money spent, people's time spent, all on a quest to make the world an uglier and more hostile place.
The correct amount of ads is zero
21–30 of 611 posts
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#22> The correct amount of ads for a publication that’s directly supported is zero. I basically agree with this sentiment, but one place where it can be a tricky balance (not saying that's the case here!) is "native advertising". For example, a new game is being released, the publisher collaborates with TheBrink, a hypothetical popular game news site, and for this they get a huge takeover banner advert for the week, inc…
Usually you don’t publish those behind the paywall. Someone else has already paid for the entrance fee after all. But I think sponsored articles should always be marked as such, at the top
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#23Disagree. Would I like zero ads? Yes, do I think a company should be required to offer a zero ad service for money? No. If you don't like that they have ads even if you pay then don't use the service. People still subscribe to newspaper even though they are full of ads. They paid money, they got an ad full paper. People still subscribe to cable TV even though it's full of ads. People still buy magazines (paid for the…
Commercials on cable are fully skippable, since the first DVR in 1999. It's streaming that takes that freedom away.
Cable is an example of streaming; that particular freedom hasn't gone anywhere.
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#24Blame consumers for this. If a company sells a service for $10/mo ad-free and $9/mo completely loaded with ads, most people will pick the latter plan. Why won't they offer it then?
Show me the market.
Seriously. There’s a lot of spaces where the options are pigeonholed. Where the middle option, if it exists, exists to ladder, not to provide actual value. The problem is you’re using Econ 101 but real world economics is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if they did the 9$ ads would plummet in price paid to the platform because it implies to the advertisers the consumers have no purchasing capability and may be price sensitive or else they would shell out the extra dollar. If they don't offer it and still sell adds they can demand advertisers pay the premium as the consumer has disposable income to buy the service and is likely price insensitive since they ar…
Is this actually true? It's one of those bits of "telephone wisdom" I've heard passed from commenter to commenter on Hacker News (and Slashdot before that) for as long as I can remember, but nobody ever seems to have a primary source for it, it's always been a "just trust me" bit of knowledge.
It isn't true. Advertisers think in broad social groups. ("25-44 women with kids", "men with college education", etc.)
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#26> The correct amount of ads for a publication that’s directly supported is zero. I basically agree with this sentiment, but one place where it can be a tricky balance (not saying that's the case here!) is "native advertising". For example, a new game is being released, the publisher collaborates with TheBrink, a hypothetical popular game news site, and for this they get a huge takeover banner advert for the week, inc…
> However "good" native ads are really just a company paying for priority reporting in the style that would otherwise be done anyway, and are probably content that readers/viewers want.
That's akin to saying a person wants some of that "good" cancer.
If I am paying, I am supporting the editorial staff. It's their decision what to report on and how. Paid-for content, even if it's just for priority coverage, compromises the integrity of the editorial staff as well as their ability to curate (not to mention a clear disincentive to be critical of the ad buyer's claims).
It starts when TheBrink publishes a high quality behind the scenes piece about a scam mobile game instead of a truly great indie game just because the latter is not as profitable and cannot afford to buy the ad.
It ends with the entire catalogue of the publication being paid for by advertisers. Much like some influencer's instagram feed. Paying for access to an ad feed is unacceptible.
To add: "the firewall" between the editorial and business sides of a publication is the basic prerequisite for ethical journalism, even if it's an entertainment rag. Advertising that masquarades as reporting is therefore the worst and most toxic, i.e., cancerous, of the bunch.
So I do not agree that native ads are something that should be desired.
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#27[flagged]
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#28Blame consumers for this. If a company sells a service for $10/mo ad-free and $9/mo completely loaded with ads, most people will pick the latter plan. Why won't they offer it then?
Show me the market. Seriously. There’s a lot of spaces where the options are pigeonholed. Where the middle option, if it exists, exists to ladder, not to provide actual value. The problem is you’re using Econ 101 but real world economics is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced
Spolsky's Camels and Rubber Duckies
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#29People (at least used to) pay for magazines and newspapers, which have also been partially supported by ads forever. Perhaps a more sustainable balance would be only first-party ads (ie no individualized tracking) for paying subscribers?
Re: The correct amount of ads is zero
#30That’s why I unsubscribed to NYT. The ads weren’t just annoying, they were distracting. Shoved directly between paragraphs and impossible to hide. When I canceled, I told them why.