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

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#81

Post by unsungNovelty »

the_gipsy wrote: post #64
unsungNovelty wrote: post #60

This is a bad take. Ads are not the problem. Behavioural ads with suriveillance and data economy is. Static ads or contextual ads are the answer. Some of the best examples I can think of on the top of my head is duckduckgo.com and https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/ Paywall doesn't stop data surveillance. All the news sites have become paywalled because ads revenue dried up because people installing ad blocker…

Ads are always bad. Poor or unemployed people get bombarded with lifestyle messages on a daily basis. That is psychologically damaging.

Not when it is done right. Most or all podcasts and youtube channels are perfect examples of static ads. I have interacted and signed up with things cos I find them useful. Imagine, the entire podcast industry and youtube channels are dependent on static ads to make revenue. And people say it doesn't work.

Static / Contextual ads means:

- no data collection needed

- More money to websites/apps cos they are removing google and facebook as middlemen.

- Can be privacy friendly

- Provide free content means more reach

- Lesser scams, ad malwares and other scammy things

Behavioural ads with data economy over api's became mainstream because we had to directly make relationships with people who want to show ads in our website and apps. It's time consuming and you will need a worthwhile product to show and pitch your website/ads as an ideal place for them to show their ads to. And you cannot just create a bunch of pages and setup google ads and be done with it. Delegating this has been bad for the websites/apps and for users equally. The only winners have been google, facebook like players.

I have been writing an article on this topic for months. I will finish and hopefully I can make a more articulated case then.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#82

Post by kiba »

9o1d wrote: post #80

Dear friends! I am a simple programmer. I had a website in 2009, where I posted useful articles. I had a small ad block, which allowed me to pay for my expenses. When users began to install ad blockers en masse, the number of ad views dropped significantly and I had to close the site. Now I have no job and I am very poor. I want to thank those people who not only do not want to pay for good service, but also install…

If the content is just a bunch of text, isn't that just ten dollars a month?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#83

Post by altairprime »

I don’t get why advertisers still advertise. I select brands either by nearest retail box store or by dedicated research into comparative qualities. I don’t watch or listen to any advertising-supported video or audio media. I don’t use personalized or targeted promotion codes. I don’t ever knowingly click on banner/interstitial ads of any kind.

Am I still in the minority or has my behavior become more prevalent?

(Note that I’m not talking about adblockers; I’m talking about refusing to interact with ads, whether due to no adblocker or due to not being caught for whatever reason.)

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#84

Post by alkonaut »

The correct amount of tracking ads at least. We always paid for magazines and newspapers and saw ads despite paying. But then the transaction was between the publisher and the advertiser, and MY information wasn't sold. They were dumb ads.

If I pay for online content it's NOT for the content itself (obviously not, in the case of freemium), it's in order to not have to pay with my personal information. I want to pay with money. But if I'm shown tracking and precisely targeted ads despite paying, that feels like I'm being charged twice. So the article is right: the amount of ads, at least if you consider tracking, must be zero.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#85

Post by alkonaut »

nox101 wrote: 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…

> If you don't like that they have ads even if you pay then don't use the service.

The assumption is that you always pay. Either with your information, or with your money. But the key word there is Either.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#86

Post by robin_reala »

kiba wrote: post #82
9o1d wrote: post #80

Dear friends! I am a simple programmer. I had a website in 2009, where I posted useful articles. I had a small ad block, which allowed me to pay for my expenses. When users began to install ad blockers en masse, the number of ad views dropped significantly and I had to close the site. Now I have no job and I am very poor. I want to thank those people who not only do not want to pay for good service, but also install…

If the content is just a bunch of text, isn't that just ten dollars a month?

OP’s talking about the time taken to write the text, not the hosting costs (which would be zero on GH Pages or something like that).

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#87

Post by entropyie »

tempestn wrote: post #29

People (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?

Yes I enjoyed and used the ads in print computer magazines in the 90s. I think having highly relevant, content based static inline first party ads is tolerable and occasionally useful. Especially for specialist hardware / software. 3rd party ads that track you across the Internet are just evil and I will block them forever. As others have said, I would probably pay €50 per month for news, but not to a handful of mainstream sites. I need broad diverse coverage. Some micro transaction system is needed.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#88

Post by jamespo »

imiric wrote: post #49
nox101 wrote: 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 star…

You have plenty of choice to not visit a website

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#89

Post by renegat0x0 »

9o1d wrote: post #80

Dear friends! I am a simple programmer. I had a website in 2009, where I posted useful articles. I had a small ad block, which allowed me to pay for my expenses. When users began to install ad blockers en masse, the number of ad views dropped significantly and I had to close the site. Now I have no job and I am very poor. I want to thank those people who not only do not want to pay for good service, but also install…

Some YouTubers scream in panic that you dare to install ad blocker. Well nobody told them to build their business around such ad-driven solution.

There are thousands, and thousand of useful places, each for free. Take a look at awesome lists at github. These provide so much value to the society. It does not require any subscriptions, nor money.

There are millions of people who share education, and knowledge for free. If you build a business, you need to build it around things that are sustainable.

The old boomer internet is also over. Google will not lead anyone to any niche blog, or site. Now everything is inside big tech siloses, where "the algorithm" spoonfeds people with what zuckerberg likes. Go advertise any real http domain with any useful data. Nobody cares.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#90

Post by allan_s »

alkonaut wrote: post #84

The correct amount of tracking ads at least. We always paid for magazines and newspapers and saw ads despite paying. But then the transaction was between the publisher and the advertiser, and MY information wasn't sold. They were dumb ads. If I pay for online content it's NOT for the content itself (obviously not, in the case of freemium), it's in order to not have to pay with my personal information. I want to pay w…

This.

I understand ads are a necessary evil for some kind of product, and it allows some content to be freely accessible.

BUT no the step from "ads" to "personalized ads" is not worth the loss of privacy, All the CPU times, all the Brain times, all the money wasted in creating always more complex infrastructure to provide a "better" ads experience.

So I'm genuinely interested to know the other side of the tradeoff, as content creator, what is the difference between "classic ads" (i.e I'm a tech blog I have ads about tech products) and "heavily personalized ads" in term of money making.

If someone also has the number as well in term of click rate etc.

Post reply on HN