Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#31

Post by majormajor »

mibbitier wrote: post #27
eykanal wrote: post #14

Following the model from the article: In the fee-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the users. In the ads-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the advertisers, (3) the users. By removing the advertisers from the equation, a lot of resources are freed up to address the needs of the other two parties. It's kind of strange to say that "the compa…

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

The comment wasn't assuming that they _never_ overlap, it was assuming that they don't _always_ overlap.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#32

Post by eykanal »

mibbitier wrote: post #27
eykanal wrote: post #14

Following the model from the article: In the fee-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the users. In the ads-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the advertisers, (3) the users. By removing the advertisers from the equation, a lot of resources are freed up to address the needs of the other two parties. It's kind of strange to say that "the compa…

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

Change that to "internet advertisers", and that is exactly my assumption. Personally, I think that is a fine assumption to make. I have never seen an advertisement add value to a internet-based conversation I was having or article I was reading on the net.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#33

Post by sp332 »

mibbitier wrote: post #27
eykanal wrote: post #14

Following the model from the article: In the fee-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the users. In the ads-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the advertisers, (3) the users. By removing the advertisers from the equation, a lot of resources are freed up to address the needs of the other two parties. It's kind of strange to say that "the compa…

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

Sometimes they're the same, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#34

Post by vannevar »

ceslami wrote: post #9

I take issue with the author's point that: "A free-based service, supported by advertisers, has tons of incentive to keep its users just as happy as a fee-based service. Why? Because if it doesn't, people go elsewhere and the advertisers go with them." For the average consumer internet site, happy users does not equate to happy advertisers. As Facebook shows, you can have "happy" users -- in that they don't leave --…

Yes, the goal of a UX designer in an advertising-supported context is to create a tolerable experience for the user while delivering maximum exposure for the advertiser, whereas a UX designer for a fee-based service is focused on delivering a great experience for the user, period.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#35

Post by chill1 »

"First off, App.net's interests are not economically aligned with its users. It wants money from those users, and all things being equal, those users want to keep their money. So their goals are actually diametrically opposed."

After I read that, I didn't need to read anymore.. I, and I presume many others, are perfectly alright with the idea of giving money to a company that is providing a worthy product or service in return. I understand that it costs money to make a good product or to provide quality services of any kind.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#36

Post by slantyyz »

mibbitier wrote: post #27
eykanal wrote: post #14

Following the model from the article: In the fee-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the users. In the ads-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the advertisers, (3) the users. By removing the advertisers from the equation, a lot of resources are freed up to address the needs of the other two parties. It's kind of strange to say that "the compa…

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

I agree, but advertising utility varies from site to site and in implementation method.

For example, I click quite frequently on Google Ads in my search results, because the ads are related to my activity.

On the other hand, I never click on Facebook ads, because a) they look ghetto/sleazy, b) they never provide any useful content related to my interests.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#37

Post by wpietri »

mibbitier wrote: post #27
eykanal wrote: post #14

Following the model from the article: In the fee-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the users. In the ads-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the advertisers, (3) the users. By removing the advertisers from the equation, a lot of resources are freed up to address the needs of the other two parties. It's kind of strange to say that "the compa…

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

Advertising can add value when it transmits novel information that would be hard to get some other way. But it usually doesn't.

It's mainly an arms race to distort natural market outcomes. Coca Cola doesn't spend over a billion dollars a year advertising because they want to make you aware of some new fact. They just think they can make much more than that billion back by manipulating you.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#38

Post by [deleted] »

mibbitier wrote: post #27
eykanal wrote: post #14

Following the model from the article: In the fee-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the users. In the ads-based model, the needs of the following must be met: (1) the company, (2) the advertisers, (3) the users. By removing the advertisers from the equation, a lot of resources are freed up to address the needs of the other two parties. It's kind of strange to say that "the compa…

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

[deleted]

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#39

Post by mibbitier »

slantyyz wrote: post #36
mibbitier wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

I agree, but advertising utility varies from site to site and in implementation method. For example, I click quite frequently on Google Ads in my search results, because the ads are related to my activity. On the other hand, I never click on Facebook ads, because a) they look ghetto/sleazy, b) they never provide any useful content related to my interests.

There's a ton of bad advertising. That doesn't mean it's all bad.

I agree. I've never clicked on a facebook ad either. They seem scammy to me. Advertising on social media is far harder than on a site where you have some indication of intent.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#40

Post by fredoliveira »

chimi wrote: post #13

Why don't people who donated to app.net at least get an account to use the service? They paid $50 and they don't even get an account? In a way, by paying $50 or more, they are committing themselves to pay an unknown, perhaps greater amount to actually use app.net. $50 is a lot of money. Why don't funders get an account?

I have an account. It was setup in under 10 minutes.
Post reply on HN