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

Reddit raises $410M in new funding

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 507 posts

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#281

Post by Ologn »

shantnutiwari wrote: post #53

As someone who tried to advertise on reddit (though it was > 1-2 years ago, so things may have changed)-- Reddit, along with Twitter, is very advertiser unfriendly. And Im not just talking about the users. I literally couldnt give them my money. I wanted to target a specific subreddit, but couldnt buy any impressions on it for 3 months. The app kept forcing me to advertise on /all, or all technology reddits, which wa…

Similar with me. Also like you this was over 2 years ago.

I looked to advertise on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.

Facebook didn't seem interested in SMBs and I didn't even advertise on them, it seemed very complex just to run a simple ad.

Twitter didn't deliver good value per click etc., but I did get good demographic information on who was and wasn't interested.

Google was the best value, especially if you look for bargains where one group of customers is cheap.

Reddit had no offerings in the way Google had, or even Twitter had. IIRC I bailed on advertising with them at all. With Facebook it was just too complex for a simple ad, with Reddit it didn't even seem they were offering anything near what I wanted.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#282

Post by qeternity »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #137
shantnutiwari wrote: post #53

As someone who tried to advertise on reddit (though it was > 1-2 years ago, so things may have changed)-- Reddit, along with Twitter, is very advertiser unfriendly. And Im not just talking about the users. I literally couldnt give them my money. I wanted to target a specific subreddit, but couldnt buy any impressions on it for 3 months. The app kept forcing me to advertise on /all, or all technology reddits, which wa…

>Yes, everyone hates ads, but thats how free sites make money. Maybe a simple user forum site doesn't need to make mega valuation levels of money. Maybe it, and other low effort sites like Facecrook and Twatter, should be run as public benefit corps. These companies aren't selling state of the art tech here - why do they need to be such money makers??

> These companies aren't selling state of the art tech here - why do they need to be such money makers??

You’re thinking of the user facing element as being the thing they’re selling. That’s not what they’re selling. They give that away for free so they can sell extremely sophisticated data and targeting. You’re the product they’re selling. And the access is definitely cutting edge.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#283

Post by emodendroket »

sjg007 wrote: post #278

Cool. I remember when Reddit launched and everyone was trying to figure out how they would make money. It looks like they made $100m last year so as long as they keep engagement up and optimize I think things will go well. I was surprised at only 50m DAUs.. that means there is a lot of growth left especially internationally. One thing to ask is, what problem does Reddit solve? And to stretch an anthropomorphism: if R…

Reddit communities are similar to Facebook groups, I guess, but pseudonymy gives things a different feel.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#284

Post by whimsicalism »

spfzero wrote: post #213
gruez wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Winning strategy for them might be to try and get more older users who don't care about ads so much and have lots of money Isn't the most sought-after demographic 18-35 because they have the most disposable income? Afterwards disposable income drops off because of kids and/or retirement.

That demographic is most sought-after by advertisers because it is the easiest to influence. The ads work better on them. For whatever reason, maybe just because they've seen more ads, older demographics are harder to reach.

> For whatever reason, maybe just because they've seen more ads, older demographics are harder to reach.

Fascinating - in my experience older generations are much, much easier to beguile online.

My guess would be the Reddit demographic is much less receptive to ads than the average, say, FB user.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#285

Post by babelfish »

emodendroket wrote: post #283
sjg007 wrote: post #278

Cool. I remember when Reddit launched and everyone was trying to figure out how they would make money. It looks like they made $100m last year so as long as they keep engagement up and optimize I think things will go well. I was surprised at only 50m DAUs.. that means there is a lot of growth left especially internationally. One thing to ask is, what problem does Reddit solve? And to stretch an anthropomorphism: if R…

Reddit communities are similar to Facebook groups, I guess, but pseudonymy gives things a different feel.

Thread-based comments also lend themselves to much more conversation IMO - Facebook hasn’t nailed threaded comments with a depth greater than 1 yet

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#286

Post by LivelyTortoise »

tootie wrote: post #186
initplus wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that they do not seem to be taking advantage of is how specialized many of their communities are. It seems primed for letting advertisers target to specific audiences, but as a user I don't really feel like the ads I get are targeted to what I read at all? Maybe I am uninformed but it seems like an advertising goldmine that hasn't been taken advantage of. If you are a PC components retailer, users of /r/bui…

I think the problem is that reddit culture is virulently anti-consumerist and throw a fit every time they see an ad. I'll bet they get terrible conversion rates.

Thing is, I see a reasonable number of ads on Reddit, they're just rarely relevant to the subreddit I'm on. I think they could keep the same number of ads and target them better, and the results would improve.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#287

Post by mistermann »

sjg007 wrote: post #278

Cool. I remember when Reddit launched and everyone was trying to figure out how they would make money. It looks like they made $100m last year so as long as they keep engagement up and optimize I think things will go well. I was surprised at only 50m DAUs.. that means there is a lot of growth left especially internationally. One thing to ask is, what problem does Reddit solve? And to stretch an anthropomorphism: if R…

> One thing to ask is, what problem does Reddit solve?

Possibly more interesting to ask: what problems might Reddit plausibly create?

My first instinct for answers: social polarization and mass distortion of reality perception.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#288

Post by hutzlibu »

cwkoss wrote: post #255
hutzlibu wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And fix the moderator system so "first to register controls the sub" is no longer the case" Suggestions? This is a complex proplem.

I think it probably needs to not be fully automatic, but users should be able to vote to nominate a moderator for removal or addition, subject to admin discretion. Ideally, any user of the sub should be able to see the 'case' and contribute why they think the mod would/is doing a good/bad job, and people can upvote and downvote reasons. Maybe kind of use AITA's style of comment voting (but with admins finalizing deci…

Not fully automating, means humans for each reddit big enough. (What is big enough?) That is expensive. So this probably means lots of decisions in short time for those administrators ... means lots of wrong decision and lots of drama.

Voting? Who has the right to vote? Anyone? Any socketpuppet account? Only verified real people? (would be a different reddit)

The base problem is called politics.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#289

Post by wintermutestwin »

qeternity wrote: post #282
wintermutestwin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, everyone hates ads, but thats how free sites make money. Maybe a simple user forum site doesn't need to make mega valuation levels of money. Maybe it, and other low effort sites like Facecrook and Twatter, should be run as public benefit corps. These companies aren't selling state of the art tech here - why do they need to be such money makers??

> These companies aren't selling state of the art tech here - why do they need to be such money makers?? You’re thinking of the user facing element as being the thing they’re selling. That’s not what they’re selling. They give that away for free so they can sell extremely sophisticated data and targeting. You’re the product they’re selling. And the access is definitely cutting edge.

Yes, I get that the industry is leveraging its "best and brightest" on stalkertech and the users are getting pennies worth of value in trade for large dollars of value extracted from them in the form of data. The tradeoff is so ridiculous that it is essentially theft. Its like trading trinkets to native populations for land.

Re: Reddit raises $410M in new funding

#290

Post by whimsicalism »

ryandrake wrote: post #214
pageandrew wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been permanently banned from almost all of the top COVID related subs for daring to discuss disallowed topics, like the Wuhan lab, as well as expressing anti-lockdown sentiments. My appeals have been instantly denied as well. I understand the idea that subreddits are user-run communities and should be able to self-moderate, but there are a couple problems with this: 1. Reddit claims to be the "front page of the…

I was going to say, there are plenty of subs for pedaling that kind of content, but looks like the major one, r/NoNewNormal was just quarantined (ironic) today, which is often the first step towards a total ban. Reddit's a private company, and if they don't want that kind of content on their site, shouldn't that be their choice?

Plenty of subs get quarantined and then don't get banned even years later.
Post reply on HN