Live data from Hacker News

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

41–50 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#41
post #11

Disagree. 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…

I totally agree with your statement. A company should not be required to offer it, but I am not obliged to consume/purchase/read it.

If i can legally block/skip/cirvumvent it, i still will. When reading a magazine, i will try and skip the ads. I block as much ads on my internet connection as possible, because i get to say what comes in and goes out.

And companies may complain about my totally legal actions. Not that i am going to to anything about their complaints, for i do not care and never will, but they may totally complain.

Comanies may also try and circumvent my actions to force the ads as long as their actions are legal. I also understand that people do not want to play this cat and mouse game.

However. When products tend to be a certain necessity and in reality you cannot choose but to consume or purchase a specific thing (Microsoft Office for instance. Yes i know there alternatives, but do you really have a choice?), things get a bit weird or shady.

Companies may still legally stuff ads in those 'necessary' products, but it's not something you really want.

You don't 'need' a streaming service or a Verge subscrition and can perfectly survice without having one, but when you are paying for one and you're still getting a bunch of ads, it does not feel right. It feels you're getting screwed because of that weird fine print in a contract.

Companies stopped caring about their customers need as much as possible. They only think about making money. I stopped caring about companies and their products as much as possible. I only think about spending as less as possible of my money. You reap what you sow.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#42
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People still subscribe to cable TV even though it's full of ads. Back in the day (yes, I'm that old) the selling point of cable was "TV without any ads". It was marketed as expensive and upscale TV, though. And people don't really want to pay for content, so this business model didn't work out in the end.

You must be really old because the selling point was always more channels/better quality picture. No ads was reserved for the premium channels (HBO and Showtime) which were an added fee. There were a small number of basic cable channels which were ad-free (AMC and TCM, if I recall correctly were originally both ad-free), but most basic cable channels had ads (and some were just re-feeds of independent broadcast “supe…

That's why I keep saying[0] advertising is a cancer on society.

TV and news are one of the first media it consumed so thoroughly people don't remember there was a time where ads weren't expected, or default, or integral part of anything.

--

[0] - http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#43
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I suppose you could describe cable as streaming it doesn’t really refute the point about the ability to skip adverts

What do you mean? What can you do to a cable broadcast that you can't do to an internet broadcast? The comment I responded to suggested that it's impossible to record video delivered over the internet, which is obviously insane. Were you thinking of something different?

If something appears completely insane isn’t that often a good sign that we might not have understood.

The comment you replied to was pointing out that it was possible to record from cable TV with DVRs and that they had a feature to detect commercials and either skip recording them or allow you skip them en masse during playback.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#44
It's why I use Firefox and avoid situations where I might get exposed to annoying ads. I was watching some Amazon Prime recently (the new rings of power season). Pretty OK and completely ad free experience. Except I noticed these weird cuts every few minutes. It took me quite a while to realize that Amazon introduced ads some time ago for Amazon prime and uBlock origin was doing a great job of simply blocking them. Hence the cuts. Same on Youtube. I watch a lot of content there while maintaining zero interruptions by ads. Works great and so far I've never had to pay Youtube to not see ads. I do pay for Amazon Prime. Occasionally. I usually reactivate my subscription when I need it either because I'm ordering stuff or because they have something I want to see. I'll cancel soon again because I don't currently need them and I once again exhausted their limited offerings. Forced ad watching makes it less likely I come back.

I don't pay any websites/blogs for subscriptions for articles either. It's not sustainable for me to do pay for all the websites I visit. And me randomly paying only some tiny subset of them doesn't make any sense to me. I'd need some prioritized list. And it would have to be a very short one because I'm simply not rich enough to maintain lots of multi dollar subscriptions per month. And I also don't want to micromanage a lot of payments and subscriptions.

The Verge, which was mentioned in the article is a good example of a website that I don't value enough to get anywhere near that short list. They have a lot of competition reporting more or less similar stuff that I wouldn't miss them. In fact, I can't recall reading anything by them lately. I guess not a lot of their stuff makes it to the HN front page. Probably because it's just not that interesting.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#45

> 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…

> 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, increased placement on ad units around the site, a "behind the scenes" post written about the game, and an interview with the developers published to TheBrink's YouTube channel. This type of package is absolutely a thing that gets sold.

Sure, but does this ever get sold on a site that _doesn't_ already have ads in the first place? You literally mention "increased placement on ad units", so I'd argue that if this site is directly supported, they've already violated the principle in a way that doesn't involve "native ads", and if they aren't directly supported, this principle doesn't apply to them. I'm skeptical that there are any non-hypothetical examples of sites that charge for access and make deals for "native ads" in the form of content but don't have any actual ad units that are displayed to users.

If I'm wrong and this is a thing, I don't think that's it's really that hard to solve. When a user signs up for a paid subscription, as part of the sign-up process, show a screen that explains that sometimes the company will partner with sponsors to produce content about their products, link/screenshot to a couple examples to make sure the user understands what you're talking about, and then give them the choice to either have content like that shown or hidden, and then put that as a toggle they can flip whenever they want in their account settings and mention that fact when you prompt them for their initial choice. If companies don't way to pay for a partnership because their metrics show that too many users turn off the publication's sponsored content from showing, that's just a sign that the system is working, since users shouldn't be paying for sponsored content that they don't actually want to see.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#46
post #2

Blame 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?

The people most likely to pay the extra $1 are the people who will watch the most, and then they'd lose more than $1/mo from them in ad impressions. The real question is, why don't they have a completely free plan supported entirely by ads -- don't even try to get a huge premium for the ads, just sell lots of them, even if it's a 1:1 time relationship between ads and content. And then have another plan where you pay…

Completely free works sometimes (e.g. Facebook), but not always - the free plan might cannibalize lots of people who would otherwise pay significant amounts of money.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#47
post #11

Disagree. 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…

I totally agree with your statement. A company should not be required to offer it, but I am not obliged to consume/purchase/read it. If i can legally block/skip/cirvumvent it, i still will. When reading a magazine, i will try and skip the ads. I block as much ads on my internet connection as possible, because i get to say what comes in and goes out. And companies may complain about my totally legal actions. Not that…

I completely share your point of view. And if I may add, I think most people completely overlook the fact that AI for tech companies is the next golden age of ad. They will have AI that can convinces you to buy a product or service over an other one on a prompt you ask. Even generating a small video clip of it tailored on the spot for you to convince you is the future of AI. Ads made google rich, they stole content through Google and won’t make money out of it with their new superpower ? It cost a lot of money and their goal is to be rich. There is no other way, people won’t pay the full price of what it cost for this not to happen.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#48
post #2

Blame 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?

No, what happens is people pick the $10 plan and then sometime later, when all the competition has disappeared, they yank on the enshittification handle, and start adding ads to the service and not reduce the price.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#49
post #11

Disagree. 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…

Defending this practice because it's the status quo is ludicrous.

All of these things happen not because people approve of them, but because they have no choice. Every company in those industries is doing this because they want more profits. Companies do have the choice, but they would flood your eyeballs with ads 24/7 if it was socially acceptable. So they push that line as far as they can take it before people start complaining. And that's how we got to where we are now.

The thing most people don't consciously think about is that advertising is brainwashing and psychological manipulation. It's designed to embed products and ideas into your psyche to get you to do something or think a certain way. Separating me from my money is extortion, though fairly benign. What I find truly insidious is putting thoughts into my head. Political ads and propaganda are weapons of war since they manipulate how societies think and behave. They have the ability to influence how people vote, to topple governments, to cause civil unrest and deep distrust in societies. How most of the world isn't seeing the sociopolitical instability we've been seeing in the past decade as a direct consequence of ad-fueled social manipulation is beyond me.

To speak nothing of the multi-billion dark industry of data brokers, and companies hoovering up and profiting off of our data in perpetuity.

Advertising is evil to its core and is the most harmful yet normalized industry we've ever invented.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#50

It's why I use Firefox and avoid situations where I might get exposed to annoying ads. I was watching some Amazon Prime recently (the new rings of power season). Pretty OK and completely ad free experience. Except I noticed these weird cuts every few minutes. It took me quite a while to realize that Amazon introduced ads some time ago for Amazon prime and uBlock origin was doing a great job of simply blocking them. H…

Regarding The Verge, I wish something like Apple News existed in this space. I'd happily throw in $10/mo into a pool that distributed money towards a bunch of different smaller tech reporting/blogs/YouTube channels. I just can't justify paying $X/mo individually to 20 different sources.

Though, I dislike that Apple News now runs ads in it's offering and would happily pay a little more to completely get rid of them, but I like the idea that I get access to a number of sources for one payment.

Post reply on HN