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

281–290 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#281

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

altacc wrote: post #59
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercials on cable are fully skippable, since the first DVR in 1999. It's streaming that takes that freedom away.

Definitely not "fully" as required an additional purchase and planning of what to record. Normal usage of sitting down and turning on the TV to what something being shown at the time does not have skippable advertising. Whenever I'm in the US and turn on a TV I'm always amazed at the amount of advertising and the effect it has on the media itself. One of the effects of streaming services was that it allowed script wr…

> having to structure a story around the ad breaks

Whenever I try to watch syndicated US tv here in the UK — e.g. The Simpsons — it's incredibly painful because the ad breaks don't line up, so you often get a 'false positive' and/or a 'false negative' that really affects the experience.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#282

Post by account42 »

closewith wrote: post #219
miki123211 wrote: post #192

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 tic…

> To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. Resolving that the poor must endure advertising to be subsidised by the wealthy is anti-poor and anti-person. A more reasonable take is that all humans should have reasonable access to services through the fruits of their labour, and a situation where wealth inequality makes this infeasible should be rectified.

And if anything, ad-supported services to the poor often means outcompeting services provided by those communities themselves and ends with transferring even more wealth to silicon valley techbros.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#283

Post by passwordoops »

shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

True. And from what I understood, the Verge is offering two tiers - less ads and no ads. You can pay for the one you think is worthwhile.

As a consumer I definitely lean on the "if I'm paying a subscription, I expect zero ads" side of the fence. It just has to be worth the additional price for me (The Verge is not)

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#284

Post by arrowsmith »

blueflow wrote: post #263
arrowsmith wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you grew up in Europe, I promise that when you visit the US for the first time, you will be SHOCKED by America's advertising standards (or lack of them.) Advertising is everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, to an extent far beyond what you're used to from home. Posters, billboards, fliers, TV commercials, product placement, celebrity endorsements - you can barely step outside without being bombarded by y…

Experience it yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6QUsx68DCA

Amazing. Reminds me of a joke from an old South Park episode. The boys are watching something tragic and awful on the news, then it cuts to a ridiculous commercial that completely trivialises the tragedy. I can't remember the details (does anyone know what episode I'm talking about? Got the clip?) but it's a hilarious satire of how the news media operates.

That CNN clip is basically South Park in real life.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#285

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

fastball wrote: post #262
closewith wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. Resolving that the poor must endure advertising to be subsidised by the wealthy is anti-poor and anti-person. A more reasonable take is that all humans should have reasonable access to services through the fruits of their labour, and a situation where wealth inequality makes this infeasible should be rectified.

How exactly are you planning to adjust the situation so that someone in Liberia making $2.50/day can afford a YouTube subscription?

This is just a general point about globalisation and selling to different markets. Obviously, a YouTube subscription should cost a Liberian a proportional amount, not the same as a wealthy US citizen. Do YouTube advertisers make as much money from the average Liberian as they do from the average American?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#286

Post by account42 »

miki123211 wrote: post #192

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 tic…

You make it sound like poor people wouldn't have those services without those oh so generous ad-supported businesses. It's all about extracting money from those communities rather than helping them.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#287

Post by zmgsabst »

ratherbefuddled wrote: post #207
arrowsmith wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you grew up in Europe, I promise that when you visit the US for the first time, you will be SHOCKED by America's advertising standards (or lack of them.) Advertising is everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, to an extent far beyond what you're used to from home. Posters, billboards, fliers, TV commercials, product placement, celebrity endorsements - you can barely step outside without being bombarded by y…

Sometimes I end up watching US TV with US ads on some stream. They are horrifying and amusing all at once. The idea that prescription medication is marketed to the general public on TV is entirely foreign to me, the descriptions of conditions that 99% of people wouldn't have heard of make me wonder just who they are connecting with. Then you get to the "side affects may include headaches, vomiting, diarrhoea, haemorr…

The pharma ads are bribes to news stations not to report on them (via being a major funding source for their parent conglomerate).

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#288

Post by eqvinox »

passwordoops wrote: post #283
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

True. And from what I understood, the Verge is offering two tiers - less ads and no ads. You can pay for the one you think is worthwhile. As a consumer I definitely lean on the "if I'm paying a subscription, I expect zero ads" side of the fence. It just has to be worth the additional price for me (The Verge is not)

https://www.theverge.com/subscribe only has a monthly and annual option, and it doesn't look like either of them is "no ads"? The annual one is just cheaper and has some magazine?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#289

Post by Sammi »

refulgentis wrote: post #143
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #121

Advertising is fundamentally corrosive to society and should be outlawed with few and carefully tailored exceptions. Any business models that consequently fail, fail because their externalities to collective society are now priced in.

> Advertising is fundamentally corrosive to society Interesting, why?

Because they want to make you do stuff that is not in your best interest. They want to create a need that you don't actually have, and they do so by applying psychological pressure. They are a festival of fomo. They're pollution for your mind and distort your sense of reality.

In a knowledge economy your attention is your highest commodity, and ads want to take all of it.

One of the strongest rules I have for my household is that my children don't see any ads. I pay for Netflix, Youtube, and Spotify and use adblockers on all devices. And my tv is not connected to anything that can deliver flow tv - the biggest mindrot of all.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#290

Post by GraemeMeyer »

passwordoops wrote: post #283
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

True. And from what I understood, the Verge is offering two tiers - less ads and no ads. You can pay for the one you think is worthwhile. As a consumer I definitely lean on the "if I'm paying a subscription, I expect zero ads" side of the fence. It just has to be worth the additional price for me (The Verge is not)

There is no “no ad” tier. It’s full ads and reduced ads only
Post reply on HN