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

191–200 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#191

Post by geocar »

altairprime wrote: post #83

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? (Not…

Well, advertisers advertise because money: I put $X into facebook, google, taboola, linkedin, yahoo, and so on and I get X+R% back in revenue from amazon, facebook, google, yahoo, etc.

As a result, it doesn't matter whether you are "in the minority" or not, and to show you why simply assume that your "behavior" is the majority for a moment: If I'm still buying ads, it's not because altairprime is on my marketing list, and I'm determined to show you an ad for something you don't want, but because volume of minority ad buys 'V' is high enough to support my lifestyle at an 'R' I have uncovered.

That is to say, as an online advertiser, I'm looking for my channel (with a big R% and a big enough V), and I don't really care about the absolute size (V) of not-my-channel until I have an idea of how to get that big R from them.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#192

Post by miki123211 »

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple.

The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens.

On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tickets, even though it's basically the same thing and a very similar business model.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#193

Post by blitzar »

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 a good way to make revenue when it is done right.

Russian roulette is an exhilarating and entertaining game to play when it is done right.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#194

Post by Timwi »

mgraczyk wrote: post #148

[flagged]

> Ads are an incredible technology that has dramatically improved everyone's ability to build businesses online.

UBI does that better. Not only does it mean we can build the businesses we actually care about and believe in, as opposed to having to defile our own purpose with ads to stay afloat; it also improves societal well-being by allowing people to focus on the content they want/need and not be distracted and annoyed by unsolicited ads literally every day.

If this doesn't resonate with you, you should reevaluate your reasons for making a business. Are you making it so that you can spend your time doing what you enjoy, or are you making it to exploit other people for your gain?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#196

Post by gosub100 »

jamespo wrote: post #88
imiric wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't give informed consent before you click a link.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#197

Post by blitzar »

alexalx666 wrote: post #74

The Verge staff might have an inflated idea of how many people are truly interested in what they have to say, its no ft.com

Alternative theory; they know nobody is going to pay them but without a premium tier you cant go all in on monetising the free tier.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#198

Post by danpalmer »

dantyti wrote: post #26
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…

> 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, compromise…

Indeed, I too, do not. But that wasn’t my point.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#199

Post by Timwi »

mgraczyk wrote: post #179
onion2k wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They level the playing field and provide economic opportunity to hard working entrepreneurs everywhere. They absolutely don't though. They skew the playing field to whoever has the most access to ad publishing (most money usually). I'd bet that a significant proportion of all the VC money raised over the last 25 years was funneled straight to Google AdSense.

Ads aren't money, they are a thing you spend money on. What you're describing is leveling the playing field. Without Ads you'd have 10 entrepreneurs. With it you have 10000

I'd rather have 10 entrepreneurs passionately engaged in their genuine interest to improve lives, than 10,000 entrepreneurs racing and competing with each other to see who can exploit more people and extract more wealth for themselves.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#200

Post by mgraczyk »

Timwi wrote: post #194
mgraczyk wrote: post #148

[flagged]

> Ads are an incredible technology that has dramatically improved everyone's ability to build businesses online. UBI does that better. Not only does it mean we can build the businesses we actually care about and believe in, as opposed to having to defile our own purpose with ads to stay afloat; it also improves societal well-being by allowing people to focus on the content they want/need and not be distracted and ann…

Neither, I do it to make money in a way that also helps other people. Almost nothing worth doing is zero sum, and most businesses are positive sum.

UBI won't work in the US, we have enough data now that I've moved on

Post reply on HN