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

Why ads are a problem

typed.pw

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Why ads are a problem

#11

Post by potatote »

Is it fair to assume that the model of voluntary contribution/donation doesn't stick with the major publishers because they could potentially make less money by adopting such model? Is there any major content publisher which adopts voluntary-donation-as-income model? I can see that a lot of casual reader like me will forget (or some intentionally ignore) to "tip/donate" whenever we read, say, the New York Times (by "casual", I mean someone like me who reads one NYT article a day at most). For cases like mine, what about encouraging (via a pop-up at the corner?) the site visitors to donate if they visit your site to read a certain number of articles in a day or a week? Will that work?

I feel like there has to be a happy medium where publishers get paid some reasonable amount for their content, and readers also get to enjoy the content for a reasonable price. I think this model can coexist with the current model if the reader/content consumer doesn't mind the ads.

Re: Why ads are a problem

#12

Post by jjaredsimpson »

js4 wrote: post #5

Ahh yes. Another "ads are bad" post. People always seem to forget that most of the Internet is free BECAUSE of ads.

Most internet content is garbage designed to maximize ad revenue. If it went away nothing of value is lost.

Magazines also are affordable because of ads. Most magazines are pure trash I would never read.

Re: Why ads are a problem

#13

Post by singron »

potatote wrote: post #11

Is it fair to assume that the model of voluntary contribution/donation doesn't stick with the major publishers because they could potentially make less money by adopting such model? Is there any major content publisher which adopts voluntary-donation-as-income model? I can see that a lot of casual reader like me will forget (or some intentionally ignore) to "tip/donate" whenever we read, say, the New York Times (by "…

What about public radio and TV? There are some sponsors and government funding, but I think they are largely based on private donations.

Re: Why ads are a problem

#15

Post by autarch »

singron wrote: post #13
potatote wrote: post #11

Is it fair to assume that the model of voluntary contribution/donation doesn't stick with the major publishers because they could potentially make less money by adopting such model? Is there any major content publisher which adopts voluntary-donation-as-income model? I can see that a lot of casual reader like me will forget (or some intentionally ignore) to "tip/donate" whenever we read, say, the New York Times (by "…

What about public radio and TV? There are some sponsors and government funding, but I think they are largely based on private donations.

http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

Individuals are the largest single source of funding, but they don't make up the majority of it, at least for NPR. Corporate sponsorship is the next biggest piece, and while it's not very intrusive, AFAIC the sponsorship messages on NPR are basically ads (very tolerable ads, but still ads).

Re: Why ads are a problem

#16

Post by mikeash »

singron wrote: post #13
potatote wrote: post #11

Is it fair to assume that the model of voluntary contribution/donation doesn't stick with the major publishers because they could potentially make less money by adopting such model? Is there any major content publisher which adopts voluntary-donation-as-income model? I can see that a lot of casual reader like me will forget (or some intentionally ignore) to "tip/donate" whenever we read, say, the New York Times (by "…

What about public radio and TV? There are some sponsors and government funding, but I think they are largely based on private donations.

Not sure what you'd count as "largely," but this shows about a third of the funding for US public radio coming from individuals: http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

And unfortunately, the messages they run to acknowledge corporate and foundation sponsors get more and more ad-like with each passing year.

Re: Why ads are a problem

#17

Post by jack9 »

Spivak wrote: post #7
js4 wrote: post #5

Ahh yes. Another "ads are bad" post. People always seem to forget that most of the Internet is free BECAUSE of ads.

If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free. As long as you believe that ads actually work and influence people then you are imposing a cost on your users. There are websites which are actually free to end users. They don't serve ads, they might have a donation page, and largely exist because the operator simply wants to publish something. Most of the 'old web' embodies these qualities. The…

> If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free

It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is.

> The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true.

You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry. Google's search isn't profitable, but the reselling of data and injection of data side is. Just because you have an agenda, doesn't mean the ecosystem matches your ideal wishes. The internet itself transmits VAST (pun!) amounts of data and ads are a small portion of that compared to say...video. 300 Hours of Video Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute. How much of that are ads? It's about 2 hours. The internet is not expensive because of ads. They sit nicely on top of it, which is part of why they are tolerated.

Re: Why ads are a problem

#20

Post by Spivak »

jack9 wrote: post #17
Spivak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free. As long as you believe that ads actually work and influence people then you are imposing a cost on your users. There are websites which are actually free to end users. They don't serve ads, they might have a donation page, and largely exist because the operator simply wants to publish something. Most of the 'old web' embodies these qualities. The…

> If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is. > The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true. You are lumping all…

> It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is.

That's a silly definition of free because it's too narrow. Imagine a website that required you to move your mouse in a circle for a minute before it allowed you to access the content. Would you argue that the website is still free? Is your time not valuable?

> You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry.

Right, I'm trying to consider a website as part of a larger business which has far more monetization opportunities than if we demand that the literal website must be independently profitable.

Post reply on HN