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

401–410 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#401

Post by 0x0203 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #385
0x0203 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said it before, but I feel like I need to keep saying it: If the people actually using/consuming a product aren't willing to pay the cost required to make/produce said product, then that's probably a good indicator that the product doesn't have enough value to justify its existence. If the Verge can't convince enough people to pay for their output, I'd argue it's not worth keeping around. Advertising ruins the p…

“Eventually” is doing a ton of heavy lifting in your argument. Ads have been a primary revenue driver for news media going back hundreds of years, including to when the US was codifying the civic value of news into its governing principles. The idea that revenue choice is binary or that if you have to use ads you shouldn’t be in business is a very modern one, and one that’s outside of historical norms.

The idea that it's wrong to use slavery as a cheap labor force is also modern and outside historical norms. Just because it's historically prevalent doesn't make something right or even good/acceptable. Some things based on historical norms are good. Some clearly aren't. And it seems to me a bit disingenuous to ignore the technological changes and the speed, pervasiveness, and invasiveness with which advertising is now done compared to the historical context being appealed to. Even if one grants that advertising wasn't "as bad" back then, that doesn't make what we have now acceptable.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#402

Post by nph278 »

toxik wrote: post #362
galfarragem wrote: post #358

The correct amount of ads is one. As an indie web developer, after trying many "ad policies", I believe the sweet spot (not the revenue optimal spot!) is one ad, clear, not intrusive and highly targetted to your audience. This ad will not annoy readers and will keep your motivation at a decent level (instead of a zero ads policy). My take: https://www.slowernews.com/sponsor

1. not annoy no one 2. neg (annoy no one) 3. neg (neg exist x : annoy(x)) 4. exist x : annoy(x) 5. annoy someone

Oh?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#403

Post by kasey_junk »

0x0203 wrote: post #401
kasey_junk wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Eventually” is doing a ton of heavy lifting in your argument. Ads have been a primary revenue driver for news media going back hundreds of years, including to when the US was codifying the civic value of news into its governing principles. The idea that revenue choice is binary or that if you have to use ads you shouldn’t be in business is a very modern one, and one that’s outside of historical norms.

The idea that it's wrong to use slavery as a cheap labor force is also modern and outside historical norms. Just because it's historically prevalent doesn't make something right or even good/acceptable. Some things based on historical norms are good. Some clearly aren't. And it seems to me a bit disingenuous to ignore the technological changes and the speed, pervasiveness, and invasiveness with which advertising is n…

I’m more commenting on the idea that ads ruin things over time. If that’s the case then it’s a hundreds of year timescale (or news media was ruined long ago).

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#404

Post by bogwog »

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…

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous.

Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created.

A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown because they couldn't figure out a sustainable way to be profitable (assuming for sake of argument that most people don't subscribe due to the ads, which idk if that would really happen).

> This feels like a situation where an organization tries doing something laudable, but still gets criticized for it.

The OP is a customer of the Verge who is rejecting their offer for a new subscription service they don't like. That's called "voting with your wallet", and its the free market working as intended.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#405

Post by snowwrestler »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #346
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…

> That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. My assumption is that the salaries of reporters, editors was paid for by ads. The nominal fee for the paper was to pay for the pulp, ink. I mean if you just printed up millions of papers and gave them away, people would pick them up simply as raw material for lining their bird cages, for papier-mâché, to insulate their ca…

Quite a lot of papers were, and still are, given out for free. My city still supports 3 separate print newspapers that are free in coffee shops, libraries, corner boxes, etc.

They’re a great way to keep up with the actions and gripes of the local community. Being such small operations, there is very light editing and the reporter’s point of view often comes through pretty clearly.

All paid for via ads from local businesses. Quite a lot of the ads are from real estate agents, which I think reflects the belief that a lot of tourists are picking up the papers in addition to residents.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#406

Post by ghaff »

0x0203 wrote: post #364
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've said it before, but I feel like I need to keep saying it: If the people actually using/consuming a product aren't willing to pay the cost required to make/produce said product, then that's probably a good indicator that the product doesn't have enough value to justify its existence. If the Verge can't convince enough people to pay for their output, I'd argue it's not worth keeping around. Advertising ruins the p…

There are a ton of things that many people would like but aren't willing to pay for. Would I like a personal chef and a personal driver at my beck and call? Sure. But I'm not willing to pay what that would cost for routine use. I do pay for some scheduled and infrequent personal care services.

Also, government-funded comes with its own strings which may become more obvious than you like in the coming years.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#408

Post by AndrewStephens »

entropyie wrote: post #87
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 main…

People advocate for micro-transactions as an alternative to the current system of funding content with invasive, data-collecting advertising. I just don't see it working the way proponents say it would, even if micropayments were technically feasible, which they are not.

I wrote a short post on the topic[0] but to save you a click here is the main point: We all complain about advertising that tracks users now. Imagine how valuable the data would be for paying customers now consider which micropayment provider you would trust with that information.

[0] https://sheep.horse/2024/11/on_micropayments.html

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#409

Post by snowwrestler »

shortformblog wrote: post #301
Loic wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Intriguing. I know the German media market is very different from the American one—back in my D.C. days, when I was still at the WaPo Express, I met a German journalist who was working in the U.S. and I remember her explaining to me how different the rules were for promotion and social media and such. I do think The Verge offering this could lead other U.S. publishers to follow suit, especially if it’s successful.

Just wanted to say I used to love reading the Express on the Metro in the morning.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#410

Post by dfxm12 »

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…

you don’t get to double dip and also sell my data to your advertisers and earn more on the side.

Print ads don't get your personal data and sell them to who knows who. Internet ads have become synonymous with this practice. Comparing them to print ads without this consideration is disingenuous.

Post reply on HN