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

I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

kirkville.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 192 posts

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#161

Post by bradleyjg »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #158
bradleyjg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think that's quite the right calculation. Revenue = subscriber revenue + ad revenue from ads shown to subscribers + ad revenue from ads shown to non-subscribers The suggestions was to eliminate the middle piece and increase the subscription price to make up for it in the first piece. That's still leaves the last piece.

No. The times only allows readers to read 5 articles before signing up, meaning they're effectively subscribers only.

As I understand it there are a whole lot of leaks in that paywall. In fact, doesn't HN have a built in workaround?

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#162

Post by yellow_postit »

RealityVoid wrote: post #22
justinph wrote: post #8

If you're a subscriber, you're the most valuable advertising target. You've shown a willingness to pay for stuff on the internet. Furthermore, advertisers are targeting people who read those publications regularly. Subscribers are those people. If you wanted an ad-free subscription, it would cost substantially more than you currently pay to made up for the lost advertising revenue.

Even if, let's say, you WERE to pay substantially more than what you currently pay, the vendor might see fit to extract the maximum amount of value from you, so serve you adds they will. The only way I think they would not serve you adds is if they would lose more money (customers) if they were to serve adds. But people have proven they are mostly OK with ads, they don't mind them (since so many services online are f…

Laffer curve of online ads.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#163

Post by martinpw »

isostatic wrote: post #97
andy_ppp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens in the back of cabs in a lot of places I seem to remember and it’s incredibly difficult to switch off... we essentially are heading for some super weird dystopian sci-fi film right now. It’s terrifying.

The adverts are why I et uber in New York rather than taxis.

I've been in an Uber that had a iPad rigged up to play ads to the passengers in the back seat.

Good thing you get to rate at the end of the trip, which would (hopefully) put a stop to that.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#164

Post by JasonFruit »

bootlooped wrote: post #144
JasonFruit wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's a difference between reading professionally produced news and watching contributed videos? Is there a reason you think they are the same?

I think once it's shown that people are generally willing to pay for the services they use to be ad-free the onus goes back to you to prove why news is a special case to which that trend does not apply. Otherwise we get into an argument black hole where you could infinitely claim the things in question were different than the counter-examples given.

I suppose you are allowed to think that, sure. On my part, I promise no black holes. Peace.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#165

Post by xg15 »

sixdimensional wrote: post #145
xg15 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads are less about "information sharing" and more about manipulation though. If I think about "information sharing", I'd imagine that the information is the thing of value to be shared and the goal is to enable the recipient to perform their own decisions with and increased base of background information. However, ads work the other way around: You start with certainly outcomes that you would potential customers arri…

Good points. So what does an ad that doesn't have a behavioral component look like, and can they be presented in a different way? And could we still make that effective? Or is it a class of ad that is ethical vs not? I know I'm way off in the weeds here, just brainstorming.

Well, I don't think it would be an ad anymore, because if the goal is to inform a consumer, the goal can't be to promote a particular product/brand/company.

So maybe something like independently ran price comparison sites would work?

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#166

Post by TeMPOraL »

userbinator wrote: post #122
expertentipp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads on the back of he seat in an airplane are very common in European airlines. One of the most obnoxious, intrusive, literally in-your-face ads as it’s 40cm from one’s face with no real option to get away from it.

At least you can still close your eyes... ...and that's what I usually do when I fly --- sleep. I've found it to be the best way to make the time pass quickly.

Not on RyanAir flights you can't. Not unless you're using earplugs. It's hard to sleep when you're constantly being upsold something, including over the announcement system at least 3 times per flight.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#167

Post by TeMPOraL »

dorchadas wrote: post #155
isostatic wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've flown LH, BA and FI in Europe this year and don't recall any back of seat adverts There are some in the on board magazines I suppose, I don't read them though, why would I?

I even flew RyanAir, which I would expect to do something like this, and don't remember seeing the ads either.

They're too busy cramping more seats together at the moment. My last flight (a month ago) featured safety cards glued to the seats.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#168

Post by flukus »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #124
na85 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The takeaway is that advertisers don't care what you think and do in fact believe that they should shove ads in your face every step of your life, even if you pay for a product. Welcome to the world. Half the users of this site are actively perpetuating the corporate dystopia we inhabit.

I'm sure they'd start caring if everyone started blocking their ads instead of accepting them. Maybe one day we'll have augmented reality glasses with built in ad blockers; I wonder how they'd react to that.

Assuming we have sufficient control over our augmented reality glasses. If someone like google, MS, facebook, etc corner the market then I'd expect them to insert ads into reality.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#169

Post by TeMPOraL »

sixdimensional wrote: post #145
xg15 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads are less about "information sharing" and more about manipulation though. If I think about "information sharing", I'd imagine that the information is the thing of value to be shared and the goal is to enable the recipient to perform their own decisions with and increased base of background information. However, ads work the other way around: You start with certainly outcomes that you would potential customers arri…

Good points. So what does an ad that doesn't have a behavioral component look like, and can they be presented in a different way? And could we still make that effective? Or is it a class of ad that is ethical vs not? I know I'm way off in the weeds here, just brainstorming.

"Company X sells a product Y which is meant to solve the problem Z, and does so through features A, B and C."

That's it. The ad just informed consumers about existence of a particular company and product, made it clear what the product is for, and listed its important qualities (especially differentiating from other similar products).

That's what you do when you actually care to inform, and not manipulate, customers. Since pretty much no ads are like this, I call bullshit when someone says advertising is important because it informs people.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#170

Post by craftyguy »

justboxing wrote: post #34
pixelmonkey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does happen in other places. Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? You've already paid for the flight. Your in-theater movie kicks off with trailers and previews -- you have already paid for the movie ticket. And so on.

> Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? Yes. And on a recent trip to India, it got even worse. SpiceJet (domestic airlines) has ads on the back of the headrest of EVERY SEAT. Physical paper printed Ads! So you are staring at it for the entirety of your trip. I kid you not.

Use a page from the magazine to cover the screen. I do this on flights that insist on keeping the screen on no matter what.
Post reply on HN