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

291–300 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#291

Post by cons0le »

eqvinox wrote: post #280
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…

I think you're missing the point. There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. The business decision The Verge needs to make is whether they want to try to reach these people or not, since these people won't pay for a model that still has ads. (There could of course be 2 subscription levels at different prices, one…

Heck, if online ads didn't move around and pop up in front of the screen, less people would block them. But the reality is that companies are too greedy, and will never draw the line and say "this is enough" . I can't afford to subscribe to the dozens of sites I glance at everyday for 2 minutes. Quite frankly as someone that grew up with the "old" internet, I don't like the idea of paying for every single site I use. It feels like making every road a toll road.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#292

Post by Loic »

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…

> Most companies do not offer a reduced ad load in exchange for your subscription money.

At least in Germany, this has changed quite a lot. The publishers are naming the offers "Pur Abo" or similar.

This is not perfect as one analysis[0] is showing, but for me, on the good way.

[0]: https://netzpolitik.org/2020/nicht-ganz-ohne/ (in German)

Edit: Added German analysis of these offers.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#293

Post by prmoustache »

amaurose wrote: post #201
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…

Who defines what is culturally OK? I ask because in my book, using an ad blocker regularily is worse then skipping the occasional public transport ticket. I don't even know why. But I definitely dont give ad blcoker people that much slack. If you want the ads gone, PAY or stop using the service. Hiring a virtual bodyguard to bully your way through cyberspace is somehow weird to me.

Ads are aggressions, not an entry ticket. The proof is that even paywalled service still serve ads. And the whole point of that blog post was to talk about ads served to paying users. Apparently some people just want to comment without actually knowing what they are talking about.

Hiring a bodyguard seems like the right solution if you are regularly at risk of aggression.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#294

Post by whereismyacc »

My biggest frustration right now is paying for Spotify and not getting any ads in music, but getting ads in podcasts. Not even just the ads embedded in the audio stream, which I can understand Spotify can't do much about, but Spotify actively injecting more ads into the shows.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#295

Post by account42 »

lousken wrote: post #245

15 years ago regular site used to have a nice banner ad that was related to the topic of the site, maybe some small logo here and there on the right side and that was about it I did not think about blocking it, did not mind, did not care. That's how ads should have stayed instead of this giant annoying/spyware/loud/popup/... mess. Nowadays I would not use anything without ublock and i am considering storing everythin…

15 years ago the battle against popup ads was already fought and won and the ad industry was trying out all kinds of other crap.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#296

Post by GraemeMeyer »

limbero wrote: post #91
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?

That is exactly what they are offering: I’m also delighted to say that subscribing to The Verge delivers a vastly improved ad experience — we’ll get rid of all the chumboxes and third-party programmatic ads, cut down the overall number of ad units, and only fill what’s left with high-quality ads directly sold by Vox Media. It will make the site faster, lighter, and more beautiful — more like the site we envisioned fr…

Unfortunately they still seem to be flooded with trackers, even if you’re a paying customer. Here’s what my firewall blocks when i browse the verge for a few seconds with my browser’s ad blocker disabled: https://ibb.co/0JpKkCJ

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#297

Post by shortformblog »

eqvinox wrote: post #280
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…

I think you're missing the point. There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. The business decision The Verge needs to make is whether they want to try to reach these people or not, since these people won't pay for a model that still has ads. (There could of course be 2 subscription levels at different prices, one…

I am not missing the point. Rather, the point is so small as to not be financially worth it for them.

I am saying that The Verge made a business decision to balance ad load and subscriber cost to potentially bring in more subscribers.

They probably did the math and realized that charging people $15 a month would not bring in many subscribers, and that they could have charged $5 a month with regular ad load, but they found this $7 sweet spot where they could give people the best of both worlds. And the $50 model means people are more committed long-term making it more valuable for them.

I would guess that “reduced ad load” means that they would only put premium advertisers, like the stuff you would see in glossy magazines, in front of those readers.

I trust given how careful they were with rolling this out that they did the math and tried to strike a balance to please the most people.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#298

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

sfn42 wrote: post #270
boo-ga-ga wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you share how you do this? For example, you've listened to a song on YT a few times, liked it. Do you try to find the artist on Bandcamp or iTunes and buy their album? Or order their merch? How much do you spend on this monthly on average?

I always find these conversations strange. If you offer content for free I'm not going to pay for it. I don't tip, I don't buy micro transactions in games, I don't pay for discord nitro or buy "collector's edition" versions of games or twitch subscriptions or anything like that. Simply, if I don't have to pay I don't. And I certainly won't waste my life watching ads just so someone can earn a fraction of a cent. I do…

Exactly. Their business is to serve content which, if consumed using software in its default configuration, will give me a degraded experience. When the content has left their server and resides on my hardware, it is up to me - no, actually, it is my human right - to process it in the way I want. It is not my moral obligation to make sure that their messed up business model makes sense on a large scale. The alternative is Black Mirror Season 1 Episode 2.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#299

Post by klez »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #81
the_gipsy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

How does this answer GP's claim that people who can't afford stuff are being bombarded with messages that make them feel inadequate and cause psychological damage?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#300

Post by manuelmoreale »

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…

I’ll guarantee you that it doesn’t make me feel any better to write this type of posts. I’m just exhausted by the modern web.

As for the other point you’re making, that’s complete nonsense. You don’t differentiate your revenue streams by serving a sub par product to your paying customers.

Serve those stupid ads to free users, treat your paying customers with respect.

Post reply on HN