Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#101

Post by wdr1 » Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 5:47 AM UTC

elorant wrote: post #4

msoad wrote: post #2

As much as people like to consider Google revenu sources very diverse or dream about future of other Google bets, Google is mostly an advertisement company heavily relying on their search business. It's obvious that Facebook has a better position for growth and adding new channels for their ads business. I can see Facebook share of online advertising grow in the next couple of years.

How exactly is Facebook better positioned? CTR for Facebook ads is abysmal compared to that on Google search.

For the vast majority of advertising, CTR isn't terribly important.

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#102

Post by heisnotanalien » Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 9:34 AM UTC

mahranch wrote: post #55

heisnotanalien wrote: post #45

Say it's not true?! Search ad decline?! How will we survive?!

I really dislike this train of thought and where it leads. Sure, everyone hates ads and would do without them if possible. But people forget; ads subsidize most "free" content. It has been this way for 60+ years, probably more. You know when your grandmother tuned in to watch Howdy Doody? It was always "brought to you by: Palmolive Dish Soap and Ovaltine!". Their ads during commercial breaks paid for that show. Back…

Nope. I didn't say I believe everything should be fine. Why can't I just pay a small fee instead of seeing ads? Why is seemingly no one toying with alternatives?

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#103

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 9:34 AM UTC

mahranch wrote: post #55

heisnotanalien wrote: post #45

Say it's not true?! Search ad decline?! How will we survive?!

I really dislike this train of thought and where it leads. Sure, everyone hates ads and would do without them if possible. But people forget; ads subsidize most "free" content. It has been this way for 60+ years, probably more. You know when your grandmother tuned in to watch Howdy Doody? It was always "brought to you by: Palmolive Dish Soap and Ovaltine!". Their ads during commercial breaks paid for that show. Back…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#104

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 9:34 AM UTC

mahranch wrote: post #55

heisnotanalien wrote: post #45

Say it's not true?! Search ad decline?! How will we survive?!

I really dislike this train of thought and where it leads. Sure, everyone hates ads and would do without them if possible. But people forget; ads subsidize most "free" content. It has been this way for 60+ years, probably more. You know when your grandmother tuned in to watch Howdy Doody? It was always "brought to you by: Palmolive Dish Soap and Ovaltine!". Their ads during commercial breaks paid for that show. Back…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#105

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 9:34 AM UTC

mahranch wrote: post #55

heisnotanalien wrote: post #45

Say it's not true?! Search ad decline?! How will we survive?!

I really dislike this train of thought and where it leads. Sure, everyone hates ads and would do without them if possible. But people forget; ads subsidize most "free" content. It has been this way for 60+ years, probably more. You know when your grandmother tuned in to watch Howdy Doody? It was always "brought to you by: Palmolive Dish Soap and Ovaltine!". Their ads during commercial breaks paid for that show. Back…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s stock slid after report on search ad decline

#106

Post by mahranch » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 2:59 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #93

mahranch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really dislike this train of thought and where it leads. Sure, everyone hates ads and would do without them if possible. But people forget; ads subsidize most "free" content. It has been this way for 60+ years, probably more. You know when your grandmother tuned in to watch Howdy Doody? It was always "brought to you by: Palmolive Dish Soap and Ovaltine!". Their ads during commercial breaks paid for that show. Back…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773 Nearly everyone has bought into the utter bullshit that advertising makes the web free. This delusion buries not only the fact that we have made a deal with the devil, but also that the deal really sucks. What we traded our souls for we don’t even get. The web would be both cheaper and better if we just paid for what we use straight up. And more importantly, society would…

That's all speculative & hypotheticals. The whole "pay to play" or "pay for what you use" model has failed time and time again on the internet. In fact, I can't think of a single instance of that working on the large scale. It's a pie in the sky pipe dream with no chance of working. A libertarian fantasy.

Isn't that ideology center to the anti-net neutrality stance? People who only want to pay for what they use? I don't buy into that ideology because there are plenty of examples of it failing. Not only that, but doesn't serve everyone equally. And, if it wasn't already apparent, it hurts the poor. They wouldn't have access to the same content if they had to pay as they go.