Live data from Hacker News

How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

wired.com

351–360 of 390 posts

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#351

> So, in the coming weeks, we will restrict access to articles on WIRED.com if you are using an ad blocker. Good luck with that, Wired. The people-who-will-never-pay group will split into two: People who never visit your site again, and people who up the ante in the ad-blocking escalation. While you may think that you don't care about the people-who-will-never-pay group, the latter subgroup will release their improve…

Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them? I have no problem adding Wired.com to my whitelist because I enjoy their articles. >I don't see this ending well for any party involved. I would get used to this. Ad blockers are relatively easy to defeat and if that 20% figure starts getting higher we'll start to…

>Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them?

Blocking users that use ad blockers and will never visit their site may potentially block a significant chunk of their intended audience. That audience may then share interesting articles with others who are not running ad blockers. I would assume that the cost of serving a single article to a portion of users who will not view ads may be insignificant in comparison.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's two years old and has half a million users in a country of 16 million people? Although it's recently expanded to Germany and growing really quickly there too, so that might skew the percentage a bit. Back in 2014, when they had 100,000 users, roughly 20% was a paying customer.

So no figures for Germany then about paying customers?

I'd love to show you, but wouldn't know where to look for that, tbh.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#354

I love the current ad-based world that lets me get free access to premium content in exchange for ad views, I just don't want to be profiled. I'd be SUPER happy to see ads that support a site that didn't track me.

How about an ad company that doesn't track you? An ad company that was based on (as in, its mission statement) anonymous data or client-side-session-level tracking?

The "problem" would be that current ads are SO tailored that they have a baseline click-through rate that'd be higher than one based solely on the content of the website.

To solve that problem, how about client-side ad picker? (e.g. I download a score of ads from "nottrackingyouAdCompany.com" and a client-side JS solution chooses what to show, meaning my privacy is only "broken" on my own PC.)

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#355

I love the current ad-based world that lets me get free access to premium content in exchange for ad views, I just don't want to be profiled. I'd be SUPER happy to see ads that support a site that didn't track me.

Yes. Publishers are currently maximizing ad quality and content quantity instead of content quality.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#356

As has been mentioned elsewhere, my exact problem with this/Forbes approach/elsewhere is that there is no way that I want to suddenly start managing several new monthly subscriptions for all these outlets. I enjoy Wired, but the thought of adding yet another subscription to my monthly credit card statement is too great a cognitive load for me to want to make the jump. Also, if you were to subscribe to the dead tree v…

I agree that it is way too difficult to manage a bunch of monthly subscriptions, and also that having to put my credit card information into a website (and have it bill me every month) is basically as bad if not worse as putting up with the advertisements on a website. However, I think that micropayments/a flattr-style fund for reading articles is doomed to fail because of the psychological shift between "I'm reading this article for free" and "I'm reading this article for $0.01, I only have 1000 of these left this month, maybe this isn't the one I really want to spend this on." My opinion is that a Spotify/Netflix-style subscription model is the best: collect subscription money, then pay per-user that accesses an article. However, the issue with this model is that the "network" of things that you are allowed to read will be really small at first.

That said, here is my proposed business model. Create an app that allows users to load money into the app monthly and issues each user a unique credit card number[1] for subscriptions to other websites, giving a central location to manage subscriptions. Once you build up a number of users on a single site, go to that site and say "Hey, you can save the 1% of the subscription cost from our users that's eaten up by credit card fees[2] by going through us to manage subscriptions. Oh, and it will also increase your conversion rate among our users since it will only take two clicks to subscribe instead of having to enter a bunch of credit card information. Once you have a critical mass, you go around to companies and now create the Netflix-style subscription service. If you're clever, you probably can create article-level bundles, e.g. "every article in our network that was linked to off of Hacker News," but NOW you have the pay-to-read subscription with a critical mass of information that people want to read, instead of "we're launching with these twenty sites from these four companies and we hope to add more."

[1] Yes, there are a bunch of problems with issuing credit card numbers. Yes, I know I complained about having to enter credit card numbers in the first paragraph. This is a big picture thing.

[2] This is kind of wrong, since a credit card fee will be charged to load money into the app, as well as for disbursements. At this point, the startup would probably have to eat that fee or heavily push ACH/lower fee methods of payment (even though I hate companies that push ACH for this reason).

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them? I have no problem adding Wired.com to my whitelist because I enjoy their articles. >I don't see this ending well for any party involved. I would get used to this. Ad blockers are relatively easy to defeat and if that 20% figure starts getting higher we'll start to…

>Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them? Blocking users that use ad blockers and will never visit their site may potentially block a significant chunk of their intended audience. That audience may then share interesting articles with others who are not running ad blockers. I would assume that the cost of…

Blocking a significant chunk of their audience that doesn't pay for the content they produce, in any way, while expending their resources is of little concern to sites that make their money from advertising.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#358
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if your usage of your computer that you bought depends on their servers, it seems they would have some sort of say in how you use it. That is, they can negotiate with you using your desire to access their servers as leverage. You can refuse to negotiate, in which case they can take steps to block your access to their server. You can use technological means to get around that, but then they can adjust their own te…

There's a reason why protocols (such as HTTP) intended for use in the public space refer to a client connection as a "request". I am asking them for a specific set of data, they are welcome to choose whether to provide it or not. Once I've received it, and it's on my computer, I get to choose whether or not to let it run. In the case of advertisements, I have more security concerns than mere annoyance, so I choose to…

I wasn't saying that you're obligated to look at ads. I said that if you want to use someone else's servers AND want to block ads, you're going to end up in a technical war.

You said "there is no war", but obviously there is.

Your choices are:

* use the servers and look at ads * don't use the servers at all * use the servers and try to block ads

In this third option (which seems to be the one you chose), the people who own the servers can then try to block your access to the site. You can then try to circumvent that block, then they can try to block you again.

This is a war. You said "there is no war".

The subtext here is that, grand proclamations about sovereignty over your computing devices aside, by making other people's servers a crucial component of your computing you are ceding to them some leverage and therefore control.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#359

I love the current ad-based world that lets me get free access to premium content in exchange for ad views, I just don't want to be profiled. I'd be SUPER happy to see ads that support a site that didn't track me.

I think the crux of the question though is: how many more ads at the same site would you be willing to see that don't track you?

Given that a site's costs are fixed, but targeted ad's are worth more than untargeted.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you make it invisible? Do people really want to decide to pay or not pay for each page hit? You have a monthly fund which is your subscription. When you hit a site that is in the network it gets a chit against your account. At the end of the month (or whatever) your chits are counted up and providers get credited. It's really pretty simple and invisible. People get to fund what they actually use. Content…

For a site like Wired and many other established publishers this doesn't make any financial sense. There's still a lot of money to be made from plain old ads, as annoying as they may be to most of us. It's obvious by now that one way or the other ads are going the way of the dodo but it's difficult to think what will replace them or if that replacement will leave us better off. The way I see it, in the not so distant…

The problem is that exact inconvenience would benefit the publishers.

Have a subscription to WSJ but not Forbes? I'm going to read more articles on the WSJ.

Post reply on HN