The correct amount of ads is zero • Hacker News Board

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#101

Post by Raed667 » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:19 AM UTC

danpalmer wrote: post #9

> 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…

> the publisher collaborates with TheBrink

in some countries (France as an example), if there was payment in any form, it has to be disclosed otherwise that's an undisclosed ad and very much illegal

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#102

Post by gwd » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:21 AM UTC

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?

I came here to say this too. And I mean, sometimes ads are good? I have money and I like to buy things. How am I supposed to find out about something I've never heard of before?

Plain, non-animated non-creepy banner ads I've never minded. What I mind are:

1. Ads that are intrusive and distracting

2. Pages that have more ads than actual content

3. Ads that chase you around for two weeks trying to get you to buy something you just bought.

I mean yeah, if I'm paying $20/mo it had better be ad free. But if I'm paying $4/mo, having tasteful ads interspersed among the content is probably fine.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#103

Post by 9o1d » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:24 AM UTC

robin_reala wrote: post #86

kiba wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Indeed, in 2009 I used free hosting. However, my articles were so interesting that in one week my site was visited by about a million people. Because of the huge traffic, I was kicked out of free hosting. Then I rented a VPS. Then I was still a big opponent of advertising, like all of you, and I was naive. I was an idealist. But when I tried to sell access to the site for sending SMS messages costing 10 cents, no one wanted to buy them, only one person out of a hundred. When I installed advertising, this ratio increased to fifty out of a hundred, that is, my income increased 50 times. Then I understood the benefit of advertising. I received about $ 100 a month from advertising. Then the income from advertising dropped significantly due to the mass installation of ad blockers. Now I use Firefox without any plugins. I honestly watch ads. This is the decision of a responsible adult. Because I understand that without advertising there will not be those wonderful sites that are still left.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#104

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:24 AM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #75

ballooney wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does pay for prime. The fact that they have done a bait-n-switch and now _still_ show you adverts, despite you paying, is reprehensible.

Only if they didn't issue that as new Ts & Cs. If they just changed the service he should get his money back for an unagreed change of service.

Unilaterally written terms are morally bankrupt. We gain nothing by helping Bezos.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#105

Post by lambdaba » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:24 AM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #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. H…

I really can't imagine someone with CTO title doesn't have $15/month to pay for YouTube when you're a regular user. People with far fewer resources pay. This goes to content creators, if you're not even seeing ads, they don't get paid.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#106

Post by 9o1d » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:26 AM UTC

arsenico wrote: post #100

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…

What kind of expenses are you talking about?

About $ 100 a month.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#107

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:26 AM UTC

racecar789 wrote: post #99

jillesvangurp wrote: post #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. H…

I would pay for YouTube premium if you can afford it. The cost is pretty reasonable and 55% of the subscription goes to content creators. It's not a huge amount but probably similar to what a creator would make if ads were shown.

But it is not possible to use it without creating a Google account. I should not need to sign in to watch videos, especially when that makes all efforts at avoiding tracking null.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#108

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:27 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #61

dambi0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You left out the freedom that's supposedly missing from streaming now.

[deleted]

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#109

Post by marban » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:27 AM UTC

Look, I'm not an ad aficionado either, but if it weren't for ads, the lifestyle of a lot of people on HN would be dramatically different — particularly for those doling out unsolicited advice to publishers on running a sustainable media business in 2024.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#110

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 9:28 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #36

dambi0 wrote: 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?

> The comment I responded to suggested that it's impossible to record video delivered over the internet, which is obviously insane.

It is quite difficult to record video from many services. Harder still to do it in an automated way like a DVR.