It’s OK to block ads (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#111

Post by OldfieldFund » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 4:28 PM UTC

npc_anon wrote: post #83

OldfieldFund wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all digital content to be worth zero." People are making millions/year just by writing articles on Substack. Just look at the "paid leaderboards", number of paid subscribers, and multiply by 70% of the annual price of the newsletter. Our newsletter is doing mid-6-figures. You simply can't find that content anywhere else, and I am not aware of a newsletter-piracy phenomenon. Even if it existed, I think many people wo…

When I say "all" and "zero" it's obviously tongue-in-cheek, not a scientific assessment that is to be taken literally. Of course there's exceptions.

These are not exceptions, but a whole industry built around the notion that digital content is worth "something"

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#112

Post by martin-t » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 8:31 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #96

martin-t wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it produces money, not value, and not for society but for the company which spends on advertising instead of spending on improving the product. Meanwhile this forces other brands in the same category to also spend on advertising even if they have a better product, thus increasing the cost.

Every single human endeavor since the beginning of time has had to balance making something vs selling it.

Sure. And some have the slider set all the way to selling. And that's wrong. As a society, we tolerate it because we have limited energy to fight it and because the good people are all busy making stuff.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#113

Post by ndriscoll » Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 1:02 AM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #107

martin-t wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd still be exposed to other options, through friends, reviewers, comparisons websites, etc. Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost. You can in theory get investors to fund ads for a new brand but it just increases the upfront cost. Organic growth is no longer possible. And who benefits most are the already rich.

Popular options will have more words of mouth, more reviews, appear on more comparison websites, etc. The incubants have a massive advantage through those paths. >Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost. Why? A better product will be able to achieve a better ROI on ad spend. This means that they can afford to spend more per ad than their competitors meaning they will win all…

A product with higher price-input cost spread will be able to achieve a better ROI on ad spend. i.e. they can displace products with higher quality, lower price, or both.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#114

Post by immibis » Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 10:19 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #26

al_borland wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To take this a step further, I have had people argue with me that tracking and profiling online is a good thing, because it provides more relevant ads for things they want to buy. There are people who actively want ads that can better target and manipulate them into giving up their money. I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I…

People paying money for things is a win win situation. People are not just "manipulated into giving up their money", they get something they value more than money in return.

Correction: People think they get more something they value more than the money.

It's easier to trick someone into thinking they're receiving value from you, than to actually provide that value.

But I've had this argument before, so I know the reply will be that value is defined as the feeling of receiving value, therefore they are delivering real value.